Re: Question on mandatory arguments for -> and ->> macros

2012-10-12 Thread Stuart Sierra
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

Re: Question on mandatory arguments for -> and ->> macros

2012-10-12 Thread Shantanu Kumar
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

Re: Question on mandatory arguments for -> and ->> macros

2012-10-11 Thread Laurent PETIT
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

Re: Question on mandatory arguments for -> and ->> macros

2012-10-11 Thread 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 2012 04:57:06 UTC+5:30, Stuart Sierra w

Re: Question on mandatory arguments for -> and ->> macros

2012-10-11 Thread Shantanu Kumar
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 >

Re: Question on mandatory arguments for -> and ->> macros

2012-10-08 Thread Jason Wolfe
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

Re: Question on mandatory arguments for -> and ->> macros

2012-10-07 Thread Shantanu Kumar
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)

Re: Question on mandatory arguments for -> and ->> macros

2012-10-07 Thread Stuart Sierra
>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

Question on mandatory arguments for -> and ->> macros

2012-10-06 Thread Shantanu Kumar
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