> On Jan 29, 2016, at 21:55, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Was any consensus reached on this? I've been working through some exercises > in Racket that a friend is implementing in Elixir, and I just came across a > "method chaining" situation. I ended up simply writing a wrapper function, > but using a version of ~> would've been nice.
Yes, actually, there was. The “threading” package was the result, and you can find the documentation here[1]. I believe rackjure’s threading implementation now also uses this package, so at least some level of standardization has been reached. If you want Clojure-style threading macros, the threading package is probably your best bet. Of course, that might not actually be what you want: consider also looking at the different ~> from the point-free package, which is actually a higher-order function. When paired with a shorthand function package (which didn’t ever get standardized), it can be a little more powerful (and just as concise) than a dumb macro. > On Jan 31, 2016, at 05:58, Greg Trzeciak <gtrzec...@gmail.com> wrote: > > With Refinements being currently added > (http://andmkent.com/blog/2015/07/06/stop-2015-talk-adding-practical-dependent-types-to-typed-racket/): > 1. Is the argument of using ~> no longer valid since refinements also use it. > 2. Is adding refinements going to cause some conflicts with the existing > threading implementations? I would say no. I’m not sure if the refinement syntax is set in stone, and even if it is, the name of this particular macro has a relatively long history in the Racket world, so it doesn’t make much sense to change it now. In the event that the two are used together and do, indeed, collide, then Racket’s ample namespace management tools are easy enough to use to resolve the conflict. [1]: http://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/doc/threading/index.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
