On Aug 19, 5:16 pm, Sean Devlin <francoisdev...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suspect I am in the minority with my next concern. The library > takes the string as the first argument, so that it works well with the > -> macro. When I originally wrote my string library, I favored this > type of signature too. > > However, over time I found this signature did not work well with my > code. Often I would write something like this > > (map (comp (partial map (comp #(str2/drop % 2) > #(str2/take % 5))) > #(str2/split % #"\t")) > (split a-string #"[\n\r]")) > > This felt a little forced, and the methods don't compose very well. > As such, I re-wrote my lib with the string call at the end of the > function. The main reason was I felt that this approach works better > with the partial function.
Hi Sean, Good point. It's always a question whether argument order should favor "partial" or "->". In clojure.core, the sequence functions generally put the sequence argument last, while other collection functions (like conj, assoc) put the collection first. Anyone else have an opinion on this? -SS --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
