Hi Miekel, The main reason is because I feel it is more expressive, and I really love expressive code :) --- Wilker Lúcio http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio Kajabi Consultant +55 81 82556600
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 21.10.2011 um 06:01 schrieb Sean Corfield: > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Wilker <wilkerlu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> (take-while #(< % 2000) primes) > > > > I was expressing a need for exactly this function the other day on > > IRC. I jokingly called it 'impartial' :) > > What is bad about #(< % 2000)? In fact I would probably write the other > case as #(< 2000 %) instead of using partial. The only advantages of partial > are a) that it acts like #(apply < 2000 %&) (to stay in the example) and b) > that it generates one class less compared to #(). > > 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 > -- 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
