On Apr 2, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Armando Blancas wrote: >> So, it's all some form of RTFM... but one could argue that this novel use of >> commas in the syntax results in adding a little "incidental complexity" to >> the language ;-) >
My wrong assumption was: "whitespace and commas are separators" instead of "comma is whitespace and whitespace is separator" right assumption is "nil for no-value": (first ()) => nil and I got the wrong result not because you get what you put in, but because I had a bug in my program - my bad... ...but if I'm the only one who ever got bitten by clojure's commas that would be fantastic (and I guarantee you that it won't happen to me again ;-) ) -Frank. > You put some pretty specific assumptions into your code: commas as > separators, commas with a "proper" place in Clojure syntax, optional > values in lists, nil for no-value, keys gotta be keywords (you don't > get a wrong result, you get what you put in). No wonder it gets > complex. A comma is whitespace and maps take pairs, that's the > contrary of incidental complexity. BTW, I don't use commas and I make > the odd count error often enough. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > > To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
