On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> Put as much as is legible on one line. If you need to break lines, break
> after the function name, not after the first parameter, in order to
> minimize rightward drift.
>
I've always preferred
(map foo
coll1
coll2)
over breaking af
Put as much as is legible on one line. If you need to break lines, break
after the function name, not after the first parameter, in order to
minimize rightward drift.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send ema
It really doesn't matter, both are right/wrong
Le mercredi 11 décembre 2013, Plínio Balduino a écrit :
> Hi there
>
> What is the ideal way to format Clojure code? I'm following Batsov's Style
> Guide but, in some moments, it sounds a bit confuse to me.
>
> To the point:
>
> (reduce +
>
I sometimes find that, when the formatting gets hairy, I need to either
refactor my code or use one of the pipeline macros.
(->> nums
(filter even?)
(reduce +))
- Russell
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:24:16 AM UTC+9, Plinio Balduino wrote:
>
> Hi there
>
> What is the ideal way
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:24:16 PM UTC-5, Plinio Balduino wrote:
>
> Hi there
>
> What is the ideal way to format Clojure code? I'm following Batsov's Style
> Guide but, in some moments, it sounds a bit confuse to me.
>
> To the point:
>
> (reduce +
> (filter even?
>
Why not just,
(reduce + (filter even? nuns))
?
That's a simple enough form I wouldn't bother with the line breaks.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Plínio Balduino wrote:
> Hi there
>
> What is the ideal way to format Clojure code? I'm following Batsov's Style
> Guide but, in some moments, it
Hi there
What is the ideal way to format Clojure code? I'm following Batsov's Style
Guide but, in some moments, it sounds a bit confuse to me.
To the point:
(reduce +
(filter even?
nums))
or
(reduce
+
(filter
even?
nums))
Which one is preferable, more corre
