On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Nick Zbinden <nick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stu said: > Objects should be the first parameter to a function (like it would be > in traditional OO). > Collections sould be in the last place in th parameter list. > > This is because it makes the use of the threading operater easy -> for > Objects ->> for Collections really easy and can make code much better > to read.
Timely. This came up in another thread recently and it was pointed out that several core functions have the collection argument first: nth, assoc, contains?, get-in, assoc-in, update-in ... Given the stated preference for collections appearing as the last argument, is there some particular reason why these functions are exceptions? Or is it just a legacy accident before the "standard" of collection-last was established? -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.getrailo.com/ "Perfection is the enemy of the good." -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
