On 6 April 2014 21:50, Joshua Brulé <jtcbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But it still seems to me that in the case *exactly three forms* - binary
> function and arguments - curly infix can be a solid improvement on
> readability.
>
> (map (fn [x] (cond (zero? {x mod 15}) "FizzBuzz"
> (zero? {x mod 5}) "Buzz"
> (zero? {x mod 3}) "Fizz"
> :else x))
> (range 1 101))
>
To me this is harder to read than:
(zero? (mod x 5))
Because it's an additional piece of syntax. If you're used to prefix
notation, mixing in infix notation will throw you, at least in my
experience.
Though if I was going to write the above, I'd probably write:
(divides-exactly? x 5)
Which makes the intention even clearer.
I think my main problem with this proposed syntax is that it doesn't
represent a data structure. The rest of Clojure's syntax defines data
structures, while this syntax proposal only makes sense while defining code.
Put it another way: would you have this syntax in edn? And if not, then
you've introduced a major incompatibility between the readers.
- James
--
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/d/optout.
