I don't like the idea of infix math as a reader macro. Yeah prefix is weird to read for complex expressions, but in such rare cases there are ordinary macros that let you do infix math. Use them.
An interesting thought I had the other day regarding infix math: It would be possible for Clojure to provide it's own implementations of the basic number classes (Integer, Long, Double, etc) that implement IFn such that they take a function and another number and apply themselves and the other number to the function. Then we could just write (2 + 5). I imagine this has all kinds of downsides regarding optimisation and what to do with numbers that get emitted from java code and so forth. On Monday, 25 March 2013 10:52:23 UTC, poetix wrote: > > I really like the look of this: > > http://readable.sourceforge.net/ > > which defines a completely reversible transformation between e.g. > > define fibfast(n) > if {n < 2} > n > fibup(n 2 1 0) > > and > > (define (fibfast n) > (if (< n 2) > n > (fibup n 2 1 0))) > > > and wonder how difficult it would be to support it (or something like it) > in/for Clojure. A coffeescript-like approach might be a good first step. > > Any thoughts? > > Dominic > -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
