cool. Thanks for the info about #{}. I'm glad I learned about that. To
learn even more, what is the reasoning behind that choice? I've seen the
sharp used for other things in clojure; is there a connection?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 26.01.2009 um 06:05 schrieb e:
>
> interesting to me that <> wasn't used for anything to add to the "literal
>> syntax". folks in another thread were using sequences for set theory. But
>> maybe there needs to be a set notation. If that makes sense, {} should be
>> sets, just like in math, <> should be vectors, just like in math, and []
>> could be maps. I know, I know, it's kinda late to be arguing to change this
>> stuff. Another idea that fits in better would be to use <> as an
>> alternative to quoting a list . . . and still not do anything for sets.
>>
>
> There is already literal syntax for all the collection types:
>
> - [] => vector
> - {} => hash-map
> - #{} => set
>
> What are you missing?
>
> Try to blend out experiences from other fields. Eg. we never
> used <> for vectors in math, only (). So even this comparison
> is only your personal experience. It's good to have such
> experience when learning a new language, but it should not
> get into your way. Whenever you end up with "But in this other
> field/language we do/have/can ....", you should take a step
> back and forget about the other field/language and look
> simply at Clojure. We cannot cater all the previous experiences
> of all the Clojure users....
>
> Just my 2ยข.
>
> Sincerely
> Meikel
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
