Oh! Sweet : )
On Jun 4, 6:29 pm, "Stephen C. Gilardi" wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Max Suica wrote:
>
> > But
> > (-> x identity) => (identity x) => x, so what our friend ozzi suggest
> > sounds pretty on the level.
> > If (identity x) is not equivalent to evaluating x, then, well, that'
On Jun 4, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Max Suica wrote:
But
(-> x identity) => (identity x) => x, so what our friend ozzi suggest
sounds pretty on the level.
If (identity x) is not equivalent to evaluating x, then, well, that's
not the identity function :)
You're correct that the result would be the sa
But
(-> x identity) => (identity x) => x, so what our friend ozzi suggest
sounds pretty on the level.
If (identity x) is not equivalent to evaluating x, then, well, that's
not the identity function :)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are s
On Jun 4, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
(-> x) should be rather equivalent to x. That
saves another function call. ;)
+1
--Steve
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Hi,
Am 04.06.2009 um 18:26 schrieb Ozzi Lee:
While writing a macro, I noticed that (-> x) raises an error. It would
be useful for this to be legal, and equivalent to (-> x identity).
(-> x) should be rather equivalent to x. That
saves another function call. ;)
Sincerely
Meikel
smime.p7s
D
While writing a macro, I noticed that (-> x) raises an error. It would
be useful for this to be legal, and equivalent to (-> x identity).
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this
