On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 5:35:02 PM UTC-7, red...@gmail.com wrote: > > They are a logical consequence of the machine. > > ->> is a mechanical transformation taking a form (->> x (a ... w)) > turning it into (a ... w x), and this same mechanical transformation is > in place when nested. You example expands in steps like: > [..] > > you can see each step in the expansion results come from applying the > exact same transformation (this transformation is exactly the ->> > macro). this is the natural result of a recursive style of definition. > While it is technically possible to change the behavior to what you are > suggesting, but it would require special casing ->> and any derivative > of ->>. >
Isn't it a function of how the recursive step is written? > So we could have something that always works the same uniform way, or we > could have am ever growing list of special cases. > The question I was asking is: does anyone rely on the current behavior? For people adapting this syntax for a query language, it's appealing to write: a->b()->c() ->union(d->e()->f()) and get (union (c (b a) (f (e d))) I was hoping to achieve something similar via: (->> a b c (->> d e f union)) We could have one uniform way without special casing if no one is relying on the current nesting semantics. -Arun -- 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.
