You can also use the list function if you don't care about syntactic sugar,
and it seems. Like it should look like this:
=> (list 1 2 3 4)
'(1 2 3 4)
or
<1 2 3 4> <-- although i'd use that for vectors and use [] for lists.
Wouldn't that be cool?
I imagine (set 1 2 3 4) prints as #{1 2 3 4}
On Oct 27, 2011 5:46 PM, "Nicolas" <bousque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Well [1 2 3] is just a syntaxic sugar for (vector 1 2 3):
> =>(vector 1 2 3)
> [1 2 3]
>
> When you enter a vector in the repl, it is evaluted to itself. Here an
> example that show it:
> =>[1 2 (+ 1 2)]
> [1 2 3]
>
> And you can use the vector function for the same result:
> =>(vector 1 2 (+ 1 2))
> [1 2 3]
>
> The quote prevent evaluation but this is not specific to lists:
> =>'[1 2 (+ 1 2)]
> [1 2 (+ 1 2)]
>
> The way to make function calls in lisp (and in clojure) is to consider
> the first element of the list to be the function, and the next one to
> be the argument of the function. This what happen when you perform say
> an addition
> (+ 1 2) is a call to the add function with 2 parameters.
>
> But this mean that you can't define a list (data structure) just by
> writing it, because it will be evaluated. To prevent this, maybe the
> best solution is to use the list function, that return a list with its
> arguments.
> =>(list 1 2 3)
> (1 2 3)
>
> You see the consistency here. As vectors are contructed with vector
> function. Notice calling the list function is very different that
> using a quote:
> =>(list 1 2 (+ 1 2))
> (1 2 3)
> =>'(1 2 (+ 1 2))
> (1 2 (+ 1 2))
>
> This mean that you might not want to use quote everywhere just to say
> 'here is a list data structure'.
>
> The preference for vectors as data structure when possible is to make
> code more lisible. Using a list is just adding more parens, in a
> language with lot of parens. Doesn't help the reading.
>
> Using syntaxic sugar for vector, on the contrary help the reading.
>
> On 27 oct, 01:08, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > not necessarily.
> >
> > [1 2 3] is a vector that is not evaluated. Since there is no overload
> with
> > things that are, there's no need for a special mark.
> >
> > '(1 2 3) is currently a way of say, "don't evaluate this list", but it
> could
> > have been:
> >
> > '(1 2 3) is a list that is not evaluated. No loss of generality. it's a
> > special type of list. One that's not evaluated. as opposed to a special
> > indicator to the repl.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Mark Rathwell <mark.rathw...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The point to think about here is that functions are also lists, the
> > > same as your list of integers. The difference is that one is
> > > evaluated, the other is not. That is what the quote is saying: "don't
> > > evaluate me". The quote is not actually a part of the list. It's just
> > > the way you tell the reader not to evaluate the list that follows.
> >
> > > So the question is should all unevaluated forms be preceded with a
> > > quote in the repl output? To me that would be more confusing.
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:34 PM, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > long long time since I last looked a clojure, but I've never lost
> > > > interest and I'm trying to find the time again.
> >
> > > > for the short version see "*INCONSISTENT*", in the example at the
> end.
> >
> > > > I know what the answer will be here. Something like "you will get
> > > > used to it". or "it's not important". or "no one hardly uses lists
> > > > anymore, anyway, since vectors are not purely contiguous". But, if
> > > > you can make things better and it's easy, then why not?
> >
> > > > So here's the deal:
> >
> > > > I still think the following is only inconsistent because that's how
> it
> > > > was in older lisps. Specifically, lists had to be quoted so the
> first
> > > > argument wouldn't be called as a function. I asked long ago (here
> and
> > > > in person) why, then regular functions couldn't require the quote so
> > > > the paren could be reserved for the list data structure, and Rich
> > > > answered that it'd simply be a pain to have to quote every function
> > > > call. Well, my mind moves slowly. I'm just now realizing to ask,
> > > > "Ok, then how about making the list really be defined using the
> single
> > > > quote as part of it just like sets include the sharp to distinguish
> > > > them from maps?". That's a much simpler explanation than saying,
> "you
> > > > have to escape them, etc, etc." I realize this is a small matter
> since
> > > > all I am talking about is how lists are represented as text.
> >
> > > > checking out the "Try Clojure":
> >
> > > > if you type the following, you get output that matches what you typed
> > > > in every case except for lists.
> >
> > > > Vectors: --> [1 2 3 4]
> > > > [1 2 3 4]
> >
> > > > Maps: --> {:foo "bar" 3 4}
> > > > {:foo "bar" 3 4}
> >
> > > > Lists: --> '(1 2 3 4)
> > > > (1 2 3 4) <----- *INCONSISTENT* why not render this as '(1 2 3 4)
> ...
> > > > this would make much more sense to newbies.
> >
> > > > Sets: --> #{1 2 3 4}
> > > > #{1 2 3 4}
> >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> --
> 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
--
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
