=> (clojure.walk/macroexpand-all '(->> a b c (->> d e f)))
(c (b a) (f (e d)))
I was hoping that it would return
(f (e d) (c (b a)))
Can someone here explain the rationale for the current semantics?
Context: some of the queries towards the end of this post.
https://code.facebook.com/posts/1737
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:
(->> a b c (->> d e f))
(->> (b a) c (->> d e f))
(->>
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
On 21 March 2016 at 23:47, Arun Sharma wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 5:35:02 PM UTC-7, red...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> ->> 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
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 5:33:36 PM UTC-7, James Reeves wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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 (un
