How about using a and b instead of ( ) so we could have faab which would be the
equivalent of (f a) so it would rule out symbolnames with an a in any place but
the first it, also we could go for less used characters as I don't know ¥ and µ
for example so that would not be half as fun I think.
--
Heinz N. Gies
he...@licenser.net
http://licenser.net
On Dec 29, 2011, at 18:03, Mark Rathwell wrote:
> The thing about lisps, though, is that code and data are represented
> with the same structure. Adding sugar that makes them appear to be
> different things would not help anyone, especially the beginner. It
> will make grasping macros, among other things, much more difficult
> down the road. Getting used to the syntax is, for practical reasons,
> a necessary, and short, process, and giving new users a way to bypass
> that would hurt more than it helps. (Not to mention the effect on
> experienced users of having to now deal with this additional syntax in
> code in the wild.)
>
> That said, don't let me stop you from having fun and learning with
> this little experiment ;)
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Louis Yu Lu <louisy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agree on looking from the angle of data structure and their internal
>> presentation. But conceptually, [] and {} are just syntax sugars:
>> [x y] -> (vector x y)
>> {x y} -> (hash-map x y)
>> #{x y} -> (hash-set x y)
>> The 2 element structures are all become 3 element lists.
>>
>> Louis
>>
>> On Dec 29, 7:03 am, James Reeves <jree...@weavejester.com> wrote:
>>> On 29 December 2011 04:49, Louis Yu Lu <louisy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Instead of using overloaded (), may be f[x] will cause less trouble,
>>>> and more inline with clojure's syntax as [ ] already being used for
>>>> defining the arguments of the function.
>>>
>>> I think you need to look at this from a slightly different angle.
>>>
>>> In Clojure, as in all Lisps, code is represented by data structures.
>>> In Clojure, (x y) is a linked list of two elements, [x y] is a vector,
>>> and {x y} a map. You need to think about Clojure code in terms of the
>>> data structures beneath.
>>>
>>> So you're proposing that x[y] be considered a two-element list. This
>>> is an unusual syntax for defining a list in any language I know, and
>>> looks confusingly similar to a single element followed by a vector.
>>>
>>> Try not to ask the question, "What syntax is good for representing a
>>> function call?" and instead ask, "What syntax is good for representing
>>> a linked list of elements?"
>>>
>>> - James
>>
>> --
>> 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
--
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
