On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is hardly unfortunate! The API is carefully designed: object args come > first, seq args come last.
I didn't mean to imply that the first/last choice is random or arbitrary. I understand that the seq functions trace their history to languages in which order was chosen to ease currying, and the object functions are derived more from the OO part of the programming world. There's certainly a logic to it. I still find it unfortunate in terms of being able to leverage -> ->> macros to maximize readability. Perhaps I mix the styles more than you. Also, let's be honest -- it's not always clear whether something is considered a "seq" or an "object". As a case in point, consider strings. There has been endless argument over what order the various string library functions should be, precisely because there's a tension between wanting the functions to mirror their seq counterparts, and wanting them to mirror their Java OO counterparts. Strings, in some sense, are both. -- 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
