On Feb 24, 5:36 am, Timothy Pratley wrote:
> Disclaimer: I don't think this is an important issue. I'd like to hear
> some wider opinions on this out of interest.
>
> So far I haven't found the nays compelling, but then its not really an
> exciting feature either. I tend to come across (dotimes
Disclaimer: I don't think this is an important issue. I'd like to hear
some wider opinions on this out of interest.
So far I haven't found the nays compelling, but then its not really an
exciting feature either. I tend to come across (dotimes) where I want
to get a rough feel for the timings on
On Feb 22, 6:19 pm, Raffael Cavallaro
wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2:54 pm, Mirko wrote:
>
>
>
> > In lisp you would define it as (untested):
>
> > (defmacro print-times (reps text)
> > `(do-times (i ,reps)
> > (print ,text))
>
> > (Not trying to force-feed lisp, just that I do not know the closure
> >
On Feb 22, 2:54 pm, Mirko wrote:
>
> In lisp you would define it as (untested):
>
> (defmacro print-times (reps text)
> `(do-times (i ,reps)
> (print ,text))
>
> (Not trying to force-feed lisp, just that I do not know the closure
> syntax).
user=> (defmacro repeat-times [n & body]
On Feb 22, 3:14 pm, Mark Volkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Mirko wrote:
> > In my practice, almost every project (no matter how short it is)
> > starts by writing raw code, and then, when I see what is being done
> > often, replacing parts with macros that simplify the code an
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Mirko wrote:
> In my practice, almost every project (no matter how short it is)
> starts by writing raw code, and then, when I see what is being done
> often, replacing parts with macros that simplify the code and make it
> easier to read.
But wouldn't it be nic
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> I agree that this is initially confusion, but I think that if you spend more
> than a couple of days with Clojure you will understand the ubiquitous and
> liberal use of binding forms.
I know I'm beating this to death and need to let this dro
On Feb 21, 9:53 pm, André Thieme wrote:
> On 21 Feb., 18:24, Mark Volkmann wrote:
>
> > Currently the dotimes macro requires its first argument to be a vector
> > for binding a variable to the number of times the body should be
> > executed. Inside the body, that variable is bound to the value
I agree that this is initially confusion, but I think that if you spend more
than a couple of days with Clojure you will understand the ubiquitous and
liberal use of binding forms.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Mark Volkmann wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:34 PM, David Nolen
> wrote:
> >
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:34 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> In general, I find that multiple arguments types for a function confusing.
> If dotimes is going to take multiple types it should be a multifn. That
> seems to imply a performance hit.
> I think Clojure wisely does not (or rarely does not?) al
In general, I find that multiple arguments types for a function confusing.
If dotimes is going to take multiple types it should be a multifn. That
seems to imply a performance hit.
I think Clojure wisely does not (or rarely does not?) allow for multiple
types to be passed into a function.
On top o
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 8:53 PM, André Thieme
wrote:
>
> On 21 Feb., 18:24, Mark Volkmann wrote:
>> Currently the dotimes macro requires its first argument to be a vector
>> for binding a variable to the number of times the body should be
>> executed. Inside the body, that variable is bound to t
On 21 Feb., 18:24, Mark Volkmann wrote:
> Currently the dotimes macro requires its first argument to be a vector
> for binding a variable to the number of times the body should be
> executed. Inside the body, that variable is bound to the values from 0
> to that number minus 1. How about changing
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:01 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> (defmacro again [n & body]
> `(dotimes [~'_ ~n] ~...@body))
> (again 3 (println "Ho"))
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM, samppi wrote:
>>
>> For now, I do:
>> (dotimes [_ 3] (print "Ho"))
>>
>> But I also think it would be a nice, natural
(defmacro again [n & body]
`(dotimes [~'_ ~n] ~...@body))
(again 3 (println "Ho"))
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM, samppi wrote:
>
> For now, I do:
> (dotimes [_ 3] (print "Ho"))
>
> But I also think it would be a nice, natural addition.
>
> On Feb 21, 3:07 pm, Timothy Pratley wrote:
> > +1
For now, I do:
(dotimes [_ 3] (print "Ho"))
But I also think it would be a nice, natural addition.
On Feb 21, 3:07 pm, Timothy Pratley wrote:
> +1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To
+1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Fo
Currently the dotimes macro requires its first argument to be a vector
for binding a variable to the number of times the body should be
executed. Inside the body, that variable is bound to the values from 0
to that number minus 1. How about changing this macro to also accept
an integer as the firs
18 matches
Mail list logo
