'(Devin Walters)
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Cedric Greevey wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Herwig Hochleitner
hhochleit...@gmail.com (mailto:hhochleit...@gmail.com) wrote:
2012/3/26 Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com (mailto:cgree...@gmail.com):
(comp {:k1 5 :k2 6}),
Let's take a step back and look at this idea from a new user's view.
The way I see it, whatever we do, we'll have to explain to users how
to create sets. Hashmaps, and vectors follow (roughly) the JSON/Python
syntax:
vector = [1 2 3 4]
map = {1 2 3 4}
So how to these languages represent sets?
On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
Let's take a step back and look at this idea from a new user's view.
The way I see it, whatever we do, we'll have to explain to users how
to create sets. Hashmaps, and vectors follow (roughly) the JSON/Python
syntax:
vector
That's surprising to me. You never use something like this?
(map #{:fred :bob :ted} [:fred :bob])
I think it's more that most of what I work with is either seq like,
vectors, or has some sort of key-value relationship. Most of the time
if I need a set of unique keys, I also need sets of data
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Devin Walters dev...@gmail.com wrote:
We have: '(), [], {}, #{}
Not quite. '() isn't strictly analogous to #{}, because quote
suppresses evaluation of what's inside.
user= (def foo 42)
#'user/foo
user= (for [x ['(foo) [foo] {:a foo} #{foo}]]
(println
not-unreasonable because otherwise people
will acquire a negative opinion of me.
On the contrary...I find that people who admit that their cool idea
after further thought probably isn't so cool garner better respect
from the community at large.
Just my $0.02...
Timothy
--
You received this
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Timothy Baldridge tbaldri...@gmail.com wrote:
not-unreasonable because otherwise people
will acquire a negative opinion of me.
On the contrary...I find that people who admit that their cool idea
after further thought probably isn't so cool garner better
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Devin Walters dev...@gmail.com wrote:
The set literal also seem fairly abundant in test code.
Yup, I have a bunch of tests where success is to get back any of a
known set of values.
We have: '(), [], {}, #{}
Well... (), [], {}, #{} - the ' isn't needed on the
2012/3/26 Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com:
(comp {:k1 5 :k2 6}), that is not used in production whereas (comp
{:k1 5 :k2 6}) (note spacing) is used in production but isn't broken.
(comp {:k1 5 :k2 6}) _is_ used in Production, because it works and
somebody left it in.
Without even showing a
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Herwig Hochleitner
hhochleit...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/3/26 Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com:
(comp {:k1 5 :k2 6}), that is not used in production whereas (comp
{:k1 5 :k2 6}) (note spacing) is used in production but isn't broken.
(comp {:k1 5 :k2 6}) _is_
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
abonnaireserge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this just another way of saying humans will have to read to the
end to see what the form is? I provided a response to
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree, and furthermore I consider responding to someone's
reasoned debate with an accusation that they in any way failed to
comprehend something to be insulting and rude. The onus is on you to
communicate
The only redundant syntax in that list #^{} vs. ^{}. A wart in the
language, but a clear improvement nonetheless. Thankfully Clojure is very
conservative with breaking changes.
All others serve a purpose, no matter how minor.
How is this proposal (on *any* alternative set syntax) different
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
abonnaireserge...@gmail.com wrote:
I will continue the debate with more class.
Thank you.
Isn't this just another way of saying humans will have to read to the
end to see what the form is?
No, this is a way of saying the {{}}
So to summarize:
You suggest to
a) Break expressions like (comp {:k1 5 :k2 6}) or {{:foo 5} 4} which
are legal and therefore used in production; when challenged you
propose additional workarounds that take a whole page to even
informally describe
b) Introduce the completely new notational
Agree with Herwig 100%. This conversation has been interesting to me only
insofar as I've discovered *more* problems with the initial proposal than I
think I would have found by myself.
'(Devin Walters)
On Monday, March 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Herwig Hochleitner wrote:
So to summarize:
You
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Herwig Hochleitner
hhochleit...@gmail.com wrote:
So to summarize:
You suggest to
a) Break expressions like (comp {:k1 5 :k2 6}) or {{:foo 5} 4} which
are legal and therefore used in production;
No. The first suggestion does not break {{:foo 5} 4}, which
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Devin Walters dev...@gmail.com wrote:
Agree with Herwig 100%.
That's rather odd, seeing as how Herwig didn't even participate in any
reasoned debate in this thread; instead, he just threw a drive-by
flame at me out of the blue and without provocation.
This
To all, please:
- either the topic doesn't interest you, and then let the thread die
by not answering to it.
- either you want to participate, and then answer questions, ask new
ones, period.
Piece to all,
Laurent
Le 26 mars 2012 à 21:34, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Mon,
I follow this list mostly to avoid losing track of things as time passes and
keep a
record of significant things.
I do not read every post, I filter at glance accoring to the subject and rarely
by the initial
poster. A jump in the number or replies in a thread also triggers my attention.
I
On the contrary, discussing ideas relevant to Clojure is quite on topic here.
Once again: if *you* find this thread useless or uninteresting, *you*
can safely ignore it, but telling everyone else what to discuss and
what not to discuss (when they're not straying from the list's
official topic too
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 04:44, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
#{foo bar baz} is somewhat ugly. It occurs to me that one could modify
the reader to additionally accept
{{foo bar baz}}
without breaking anything. It's not possible for it to be a valid map
literal, because the outer
Doesn't this amount to arguing over what color the bike shed should be? [1]
Is there anything I could do with Clojure with an aesthetically different
(but functionally identical ) set notation that I cannot do with Clojure
right now?
Anyway, no matter how beautiful a new set notation might be
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Evan Mezeske emeze...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there anything I could do with Clojure with an aesthetically different
(but functionally identical ) set notation that I cannot do with Clojure
right now?
Attract 0.7 more people per 1000 on average to adopt the
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
How often do we get What are the differences among 100, 0144, and
0x64, and which should I use when? ;)
Nevermind:
#^{:foo 42} thingy vs. ^{:foo 42} thingy;
(deref foo) vs. @foo;
#'bar vs. (var bar);
#(+ %2 (* 2 %1)) vs.
I think one of the strengths of clojure (over at least CL certainly) is
it's a warm and helpful community. Please, let's not poison that.
I think this response was not only not helpful, it was also, in some small
way, damaging to the community. Please don't reply to legitimate questions
in
Embarrassingly, it took this long for me to realize there's a much
tidier way to alter the reader:
Where the exception throw is for map literals with odd numbers of
key-or-value items, wrap the throw in a check that counts the number
of additional consecutive } tokens, stopping when it hits a
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
So ... any further objections, other than it's unlikely anyone cares
enough to bother actually making such a change? :)
It breaks the uniformity of Clojure syntax.
Almost all sugar is prefix: you can identify syntax
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
abonnaireserge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
So ... any further objections, other than it's unlikely anyone cares
enough to bother actually making such a change? :)
It
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
abonnaireserge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com
wrote:
So ... any further objections, other than
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
#{foo bar baz} is somewhat ugly. It occurs to me that one could modify
the reader to additionally accept
{{foo bar baz}}
My concern is that
I would suggest that we introduced some klingon characters in the language,
we could then satisfy all these alien desires to change a syntax that has been
established 4 years ago.
We have a product driving an hospital here, your esthetic considerations do
not
fit in my deployment plan. This is
Your point is clear and valid but isn't it a bit harsh to write the
response in a tone like this? After all we are asking and answering
questions here, it's not like something is going to change after one
request.
BTW it is nice to hear Clojure being reliable enough in people's eyes to be
Hey, we all have our rough edges :)
I'm 50, there's less life in front of me than behind. Debating about the sex of
angels looks to me a bad way of using the not so many hours left in our lives
on significant problems before the final exit.
It's not the first time requests similar to this one
Forgot to add these:
http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Clojure+Success+Stories
http://www.quora.com/Whos-using-Clojure-in-production
Your point is clear and valid but isn't it a bit harsh to write the
response in a tone like this? After all we are asking and answering
questions
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
#{foo bar baz} is somewhat ugly. It occurs to me that one could modify
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Scott Jaderholm jaderh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
As for the aesthetics, what I like about {{...}} is that the
delimiters are symmetrical, unlike #{...}, and it would allow one to
reserve use of
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Softaddicts
lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
Hey, we all have our rough edges :)
I'm 50, there's less life in front of me than behind. Debating about the sex
of
angels looks to me a bad way of using the not so many hours left in our lives
on significant
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Scott Jaderholm jaderh...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to break it to you, but # is used in many places other than
lambdas, so even if you remove it from #{} you still have foo#, #^foo,
#^{foo bar}, #'foo, #foo, #_foo, #foo{1 2}, #foo[1 2], and others
I've probably
I don't mind the #{} syntax, however I feel that if alternate syntax
were to be introduced (for whatever datatype) it should be the unicode
parenthesis since they 1. Look nice, 2. No addition of extra
characters (I value succinctness), 3. They work in most common
existing structured editing
#{foo bar baz} is somewhat ugly. It occurs to me that one could modify
the reader to additionally accept
{{foo bar baz}}
without breaking anything. It's not possible for it to be a valid map
literal, because the outer {...} pair has only one object inside it
and a map literal requires an even
I'm a fan of #{foo bar baz}.
Ambrose
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
#{foo bar baz} is somewhat ugly. It occurs to me that one could modify
the reader to additionally accept
{{foo bar baz}}
without breaking anything. It's not possible for it to
Even if #{...} was ugly (which I don't feel one way or the other on),
having two special syntaxes for the same thing is even uglier than having
one ugly set literal notation :)
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
abonnaireserge...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a fan of #{foo bar
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Cedric Greevey cgree...@gmail.com wrote:
#{foo bar baz} is somewhat ugly. It occurs to me that one could modify
the reader to additionally accept
{{foo bar baz}}
My concern is that {{1 2 3 4}5} is currently legal - a map with a map
as a key and 5 as the value.
44 matches
Mail list logo
