I generally prefer to pass in a sequence rather than use a variable number of arguments. The only time variable arguments are really useful is in functions like map (or maybe +) in which you rarely use more than one (or two) arguments and it would be a pain to wrap the last argument in a list.
e.g. #+begin_src clojure (map (partial + 1) (list (range 10))) #+end_src would be very awkward but required without &rest finally, explicitly wrapped sequences are more composable just my opinions... -- Eric Alan <a...@malloys.org> writes: > I always write a function to take a single seq argument because it can > also take varargs if I wrap them in a seq. > > (defn add [nums] > (reduce + nums)) > > (add some-seq) > (add [1 2 3 4 5]) > > On Nov 19, 4:19 pm, Jarl Haggerty <fictivela...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I always write a function to take varargs because it can also take a >> list using apply. >> >> (+ 1 2 3 4 5) >> (apply + [1 2 3 4 5]) >> >> On Nov 15, 9:52 am, Chris <christopher.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > If you have a function that needs to treat multiple arguments as a >> > group, what forces drive you to represent this as a single sequence >> > argument vs. an "&" argument? To give a concrete example, why does >> > "+" work like >> >> > (+ 1 2 3 4) >> >> > instead of >> >> > (+ [1 2 3 4]) >> >> > Is it performance? Aesthetics? Composability concerns? Not having >> > to call "apply" all the time? >> >> > Thanks, >> > Chris >> >> -- 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 first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
