On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Alan Malloy <a...@malloys.org> wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 12:03 pm, Jonas <jonas.enl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You can also do (.. boxWidget GetProp3D (SetUserTransform t)) or (-> >> boxWidget .GetProp3D (.SetUserTransform t)) > > Well, neither of these are strictly equivalent to his original code, > which returns the boxWidget; yours return the result of > SetUserTransform. However, the option to leave off the parens, or > use .. instead are both still valid. Leaving off the doto might be > valid also, if he doesn't care about the return value. > > FWIW, I don't really care for .. - my understanding is it's fallen out > of favor: it was added in the bad old days before -> existed.
I don't use .. in real code, but I use it a lot at the REPL because I can chain a bunch of java methods without having to type dots. For example, this: (.. foo getBar doBaz getYum) instead of this: (-> foo .getBar .doBaz .getYum) yeah. it's only 3 characters, but for whatever reason it sees to make a difference to me :) Dave -- 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
