Yeah, you are probably right. But I figured asking never hurts... Thanks for the reply.
Razvan On Oct 19, 10:50 pm, Alan Malloy <a...@malloys.org> wrote: > Not really. In _Let Over Lambda_'s section on reader macros, he > creates a reader macro #`(foo bar a1 a2) that expands to (lambda (a1 > a2) `(foo bar ,a1 ,a2)), but this is not possible in Clojure. A nice > example of something you can do with reader macros, in case Clojure > ever gets them. > > And you could certainly write it yourself as a regular macro, at the > expense of a syntax that's almost as long as the (fn [x] `(foo)) > syntax. But really, that construct is very short, and worrying about > the extra six characters you would save by writing it with #() seems > like wasted effort to me. > > On Oct 19, 1:14 pm,RazvanRotaru <razvan.rot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > I'm just wondering is there a nicer way to write this: > > > (defmacro my-macro [& body] > > (map (fn[x] `(my-fun ~x)) body)) > > > I'd like to use the anonymous function literall #(), but this won't > > work: > > > (defmacro my-macro [& body] > > (map #(`(my-fun ~%)) body)) > > > So if you have some suggestion, I'd be glad to hear it. > > > Thanks, > >Razvan -- 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
