> Greg you're enthusiasm is appreciated. But this ML is filled with talented > and smart people who have an equal grasp of logic and reason who have been > using Clojure for a couple years now and they aren't clamoring to your nice > snippet of code. That's something to consider.
It is indeed. I would be surprised though if I was the only person who sees --> as useful, and that brings us to your next sentence... > It is interesting that this is not the first time such a feature has been > requested. But again, I haven't ever had a need for such a general threading > macro. I'll make a list here of the reasons given for Yay/Nay so far: Nay: 1) "I haven't had a need for a general threading macro." 2) The response so far is negative (and consists of repeating point #1 above). Yay: 1) This has been requested multiple times. (Which pretty much cancels out Nay #1 & #2). 2) --> is a generalized version of -> and ->>, and therefore useful in situations where you can't use -> or ->>. It is the 'nth' to 'first' & 'last'. 3) It makes code more readable by explicitly indicating where the argument is passed. At least if I've outlined the positions correctly, it's pretty sad that this is being fought against so hard. I'll make the additional points that: - There are plenty of macros and functions in the core that I'm sure you've never used once, yet they are there for others who find them useful. So simply responding to my proposal by saying, "I don't think I need it" isn't a valid reason against its inclusion. - Most of you have used the other threading macros (-> and ->>), so you do in fact encounter situations and examples where the --> macro could be used. If it existed in the core already I think there's a pretty good chance you would have even used it yourselves, and your code would then gain the added benefit of being more readable. As you pointed out earlier though, macros are great, and I'm free to use this macro in my own code, so I will. - Greg On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:40 PM, David Nolen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Greg <g...@kinostudios.com> wrote: > > Have you checked for those? > > No, sorry, I think that's a rather unreasonable request. I'm not going to > spend hours sifting through the core and contrib just to jerk out examples > for you. > > I'd rather use logic and reason to make my case. > > - Greg > > Greg you're enthusiasm is appreciated. But this ML is filled with talented > and smart people who have an equal grasp of logic and reason who have been > using Clojure for a couple years now and they aren't clamoring to your nice > snippet of code. That's something to consider. > > It is interesting that this is not the first time such a feature has been > requested. But again, I haven't ever had a need for such a general threading > macro. > > One nice side effect of -> and ->> over --> is that it encourages everyone to > consider the position of their arguments. Uniformity is nice. > > David > > -- > 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 -- 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
