> I think you should not explain def as a function, as that is not a > helpful simplification but rather just misleading. > > You could just explain how it behaves without mentioning special forms > vs functions. >
I see what you mean. My point is more that special forms have the same syntax as functions: (*operator arg1 arg2 ...*) so maybe I should call them s-expressions instead, and explain those as lists of things surrounded by brackets. That way I can call *str *an operator that happens to be a function and not explicitly call *def* a special form. Or you have to keep special forms out of the first chapter. This made me > wonder; The Little Schemer starts with atoms, lists, s-expressions and I > think the first mention of define is on page 16. > That's probably more pedagogical, but I think that binding your own name to a variable is something everyone does when programming for the very first time, so I think it's pretty important to have *def* up front :) // Pascal -- 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
