How about cond? (cond test true :else false)
BTW I personally don't consider if complected. If reverse order is more appropriate, I use if-not. On Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:02:54 AM UTC+1, Thomas Goossens wrote: > > One of the issues i had and still have with the if function is that > because it has ordered arguments, makes things more complex. > > For small functions this is no so much of a problem. > (if test 1 0) > > But when things get larger, that extra complexity of order without > explicit information can get significant, I believe > > So I wanted (this would be officially my first macro ever!) something that > behaved as follows: > > (if test > :then true > :else false) > > (if test > :else false > :then true) > > Which is what I eventually did: > > (defmacro iff > [test & body] > (let [args (apply hash-map body)] > `(if ~test (:then ~args) (:else ~args)))) > > Any thoughts, improvements on my macro? (Also I'm not quite sure how to > document my macro. So any advice on that is appreciated :) > > > > -- 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
