On 26/12/2011, at 6:23 PM, Louis Yu Lu wrote: > My proposition is enhance Clojure to accept both (f x) and f(x)
Fortunately, I don't see that happening, for several reasons (many of which have been mentioned). It adds complexity, causes confusion and inconsistent coding styles and it will break everything that parses s-expressions (data = code after all). Imagine trying to read lisp code that is a mix-n-match of the following: ;; the following would be equivalent: (g (f a b)) (g f(a b)) g((f a b)) g(f(a b)) ;; the following would be equivalent: ((f a) b) (f(a) b) (f a)(b) f(a)(b) FOUR different ways of expressing ((f a) b). How is that helping those trying to learn Clojure? Also, note that (g f(a b)) and (g f (a b)) have very different semantics, even though the only difference is the added whitespace between two tokens. If you stick with the elegant simplicity of s-expressions for a few more weeks, I promise that you won't even notice it anymore and you'll find that it's perfectly readable. cheers, gert -- 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
