Thats the whole idea. The ability to build abstractions. Currently I have a
host of functions that I have defined for higher level components, which
then return datastructures defined in terms of basic html tags.
It would be a great idea if I could directly represent even custom tags as
the basic tags, rather than a function call, and as Walter mentioned then
have the ability to manipulate the data structures alike.
And this is not to take away the excellent library that hiccup is and what
it enables us to do. This conversation would not have been possible without
that.
Thanks,
Murtaza
On Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:18:01 AM UTC+5:30, Dave Sann wrote:
>
> As I see it, link-to is a function that saves you a little bit of typing
> if you choose to use it.
>
> But if you don't, you could just write [:a {:href "blah"} "Blah"] where :a
> is exactly :link-to, just spelt differently.
>
> what is proposed above seems to be renaming of elements and attributes -
> but for what purpose?
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Sunday, 13 May 2012 13:01:01 UTC+10, Walter Tetzner wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, James Reeves wrote:
>>
>>> That seems more complicated, IMO. Why require an custom macro system
>>> when normal functions do the same job? What's the advantage?
>>>
>>
>> The same reason hiccup uses data structures to represent HTML instead
>> of using nested functions: you can manipulate the vectors with
>> code. Function calls are opaque.
>>
>>
>
--
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
