Firstly, sorry about this thread :-D I wasn't trolling, honest, I just thought it was getting to the point where the word was loosing its meaning.
There are many ways to express the notion of applying Clojure's characteristics to one's code: "here's a more Clojurian version of that function..." "that's the Clojure way of doing it" "how can I write this function Clojure-style ?" "how could I Clojurify this code ?" "what's the Clojure way of doing X ?" Often people actually mean a slightly different thing, but use "idiomatic" because it's popular -- for instance, (in particular) they might mean "functional". The rest of the time, people are usually just asking how to do something in Clojure. Stackoverflow is brimming with questions like "what's the idiomatic way to do X in Clojure ?" when really all they want to know is "how do I do X in Clojure" - anyone answering is unlikely to provide an example written in say, a Smalltalk or Python style, but written in Clojure! Any answers given are likely to be implicitly idiomatic, just because they're written by Clojurians, in Clojure. In fact I challenge anyone to give an example of the least idiomatic code written in Clojure (using Java interop is cheating). On Nov 16, 5:53 pm, Ben Smith-Mannschott <bsmith.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:16, thenwithexpandedwingshesteershisflight > > <mathn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can we please get bored of saying "idiomatic" and "in particular" > > please ? > > can you think of some more idiomatic way to say "idiomatic", in particular? :P > > // ben -- 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
