I don't think redefining the behavior of fundamental syntax is a good
idea. Might break many things.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Steven Obua <ste...@obua.de> wrote:
> Come to think of it, why not redefine #(...) in the following way:
>
>
> If (count [...]) is 0 or > 1 , then the old semantics stays
> If (count [...]) is 1, then the new semantics kicks in (i.e., without
> enclosing brackets).
>
> This would allow (#({:a %}) :b) to behave in a sane way
>
> In case f is actually a function of no arguments, for #(f) you would get
>
> (fn [] f)
>
> which is also more likely what you actually want compared to the old meaning
>
> (fn [] (f))
>
> which is equivalent to f (and therefore there is no need to write #(f) in
> the first place).
>
>
> On Monday, June 4, 2012 2:53:09 AM UTC+1, Steven Obua wrote:
>>
>> The expression
>>
>> (#({:a %}) :b)
>>
>> should evaluate to {:a :b}, but raises an exception instead:
>>
>> Wrong number of args (0) passed to: PersistentArrayMap
>>
>> This is a pretty irritating bug and makes the #% form essentially unusable
>> for me, because I cannot rely on it but have to always second guess if its
>> use is safe in the current context or not.
>
> --
> 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
--
Moritz Ulrich
--
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
