One criterion would be how often you expect to call with zero or one z. If a lot, use &; otherwise prefer calling with an explicit collection.
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:45:38 PM UTC+1, Dave Sann wrote: > > a minor thing. > > which do you prefer? > > (defn blah [x y & zs] ...) , or, (defn blah [x y zs] ...) > > > > clojure core usually uses the first form. assoc, conj and so forth > > I have used this because it seems nicer for the caller > > (blah x y z1 z2 z3) rather than (blah x y [z1 z2 z3]) > > > However, if you regularly use this you end up with apply calls all over > the place. > > so, > > (defn other-blah [x & zs] ...) > > (defn blah [x y & zs] > ... > (apply other-blah x zs)) > > > > If you use the second form you can pass straight through - which seems to > decrease code noise. > > (defn other-blah [x zs] ...) > > (defn blah [x y zs] > ... > (other-blah x zs)) > > and looks better to me. > > > > Dave > > > > -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
