Hi, Am 06.07.2010 um 20:09 schrieb Greg:
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Stuart Halloway wrote: > >> (1) Clojure APIs are very careful about parameter order. > > And what if you want to use a function outside of the Clojure API? This would be most likely java interop, ie. ->. > Or a function *in* the Clojure API that doesn't follow the parameter order > you want? There the main arguments are 99% of the times the first or the last ones. So -> or ->> will work. >> (2) -> and ->> encourage chains of operations that build on that parameter >> order. > > Why is that important? Because consistency matters. >> (3) I haven't seen a lot of examples where something like --> solves real >> problems in code. > > I haven't coded long enough in Clojure to provide you with any examples, but > it seems like hoping that the functions you're going to use are going to have > the correct parameter order is silly. Why hope when you can guarantee it > won't matter? > > Anyways, you haven't seen a lot of examples simply because people don't have > a --> to use. Thus they're are forced to work around it, for example by > replacing calls to -> or ->> with the corresponding standard calls > (postfix/prefix? don't remember what that style is called). > > If it existed, you would see it being used. I don't think so. For example sequence or not-empty exist. But I never needed one of them in two and half years of Clojure coding. And I can't remember to have seen a single usage in other peoples code. (of course an absolutely representative sample... ;)) > Yes, let's handicap ourselves and then disparage a useful macro as > "unneeded." The -> and ->> macros aren't needed either, so why are they > there? While we're at it, we should make it so that the + function takes only > two arguments because any more leads to "unneeded versatility" and therefore, > apparently, to "support headache." :-p Can we tune down the rethoric a little bit? These issues were discussed in depth several times now. And the fact that such a macro was not included in core should give a hint, that the pain can't be that big. Sincerely Meikel -- 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
