> Here's a concrete best-practices suggestion: follow the lead of Haskell and > other functional languages in using x, y, z as generic type names, and x:xs > (where 'xs' is plural of x) to indicate a list of xs; for seqs, maybe > x::xs. So I would rewrite your example to something like: "[x y::ys] -> > x::y::ys"
If you're citing Haskell's system as "best practice" perhaps we might simply adopt their "literate" tools and techniques? Tim -- 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/d/optout.
