Chouser - Can you describe definline and how that differs from defmacro? I'm not sure I understand it from reading the docs.
On Jul 17, 10:06 am, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Laurent PETIT<laurent.pe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 2009/7/17 Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> > > >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Mark > >> Addleman<mark_addle...@bigfoot.com> wrote: > > >> > On Jul 17, 2:35 am, Nicolas Oury <nicolas.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hello, > > >> >> Can this construct handle higher-order functions? > > >> > Nope :) > > >> > Chouser brought up this point in IRC. It's not even clear what the > >> > syntax would look like. > > >> I suppose you could provide named-arg-aware high order > >> functions with their own syntax. > > >> (named-map subtract :from (range 0 30 3) :take (range 10)) > > >> But you'd need everything -- filter, reduce, etc... > > >> There is something that can be done to make a normal call > >> look more ... normal. That is, instead of: > > >> (named-call subtract :from 10 :take 2) > > >> you'd prefer: > > >> (subtract :from 10 :take 2) > > >> Well, that's just a matter of writing a defn-named-args > >> macro: > > >> (defn-named-args subtract [from take] (- from take)) > > >> Which would expand to something like: > > >> (do > >> (defn subtract-func [from take] (- from take)) > >> (defmacro subtract [& args] > >> `(named-call subtract-func ~...@args))) > > >> This actually came up in IRC too. :-) Note it builds > >> directly on the named-call macro you've already got. Also > >> note that it enforces the inability to use this 'subtract' > >> in high order functions because it's now a macro. > > > Hi, though interesting, I sincerely think all this becomes a little bit too > > complicated ... or maybe not general enough (starting to have to treat > > "callable with named args" functions as second class citizens is a bad smell > > and, maybe, not a good start in life for them ?) > > Well, I'm not really advocating this use of this > everywhere... But clever use of :inline could get your > named-arg functions back to full citizenship, I think. > > But you'd still have to write named-* versions of all your > high order functions. This wouldn't be a tweak to Clojure > as an experimental related new language. :-) > > Don't forget to patch the reader so you can do: > > #(- %:from %:take) > > --Chouser --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
