Thank you, especially thanks for tagging it an enhancement.
-S
--
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
On Monday, 8 October 2012 09:57:15 UTC+5:30, Shantanu Kumar wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, 8 October 2012 04:57:06 UTC+5:30, Stuart Sierra wrote:
>>
>> From the look of the source, there's no reason why ->> couldn't have
>> arity-1. I guess it just doesn't come up much.
>>
>
> Arity-1 for ->> would b
2012/10/12 Jason Wolfe
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:29:57 AM UTC-7, Shantanu Kumar wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 06:07:06 UTC+5:30, Jason Wolfe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 9:27:15 PM UTC-7, Shantanu Kumar wrote:
On Monday, 8 October
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:29:57 AM UTC-7, Shantanu Kumar wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 06:07:06 UTC+5:30, Jason Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 9:27:15 PM UTC-7, Shantanu Kumar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, 8 October 2012 04:57:06 UTC+5:30, Stuart Sierra w
On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 06:07:06 UTC+5:30, Jason Wolfe wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 9:27:15 PM UTC-7, Shantanu Kumar wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 8 October 2012 04:57:06 UTC+5:30, Stuart Sierra wrote:
>>>
>>> From the look of the source, there's no reason why ->> couldn't have
>
On Sunday, October 7, 2012 9:27:15 PM UTC-7, Shantanu Kumar wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, 8 October 2012 04:57:06 UTC+5:30, Stuart Sierra wrote:
>>
>> From the look of the source, there's no reason why ->> couldn't have
>> arity-1. I guess it just doesn't come up much.
>>
>
> Arity-1 for ->> would b
On Monday, 8 October 2012 04:57:06 UTC+5:30, Stuart Sierra wrote:
>
> From the look of the source, there's no reason why ->> couldn't have
> arity-1. I guess it just doesn't come up much.
>
Arity-1 for ->> would be useful to let somebody comment out forms as
follows:
(->> foo
#_(bar baz)
>From the look of the source, there's no reason why ->> couldn't have
arity-1. I guess it just doesn't come up much.
-S
--
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 fro
Hi,
I am curious about the rationale for the mandatory arguments for ->
and ->> macros.
user=> (doc ->)
-
clojure.core/->
([x] [x form] [x form & more])
user=> (doc ->>)
-
clojure.core/->>
([x form] [x form & more])
For -> a form is optional, but