On 3 February 2010 08:58, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > condp was specifically designed to be a scheme-like cond with :>> > support and such.
Well, I like condp a lot (really, condp FTW! -- definately worth a define-syntax in Scheme :-)), but it's nothing like Scheme's cond (which is a good thing, as it contributes to its super-conciseness where it's suitable for the task at hand). Clojure's cond will match Scheme's cond in flexibility the moment it learns to recognise :>> (Scheme-style unary clauses can then be modelled with :>> identity). Hopefully it will do so some day. :-) Still, I have to admit that my own example of use of scond above would definately benefit from condp. I thought a Scheme-style cond might be helpful if the situation where to become more complex, with clauses no longer matching a common pattern etc., but I guess complicating the code now so that one won't have to change the macro at the head if things get more complex later is not a good strategy... My enthusiasm for the bracketed clauses (the ultimate reason for me to write scond, truth be told) must have blinded me. :-( Sincerely, Michal -- 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
