Hi Timothy,
On Feb 12, 8:08 pm, Timothy Pratley timothyprat...@gmail.com wrote:
What should happen when/if the seq arg doesn't contain the symbol? I
believe how you currently handle it is correct and in the spirit of
let- (alternatively it could be reported as an error) however it may
raise
Plus a macro makes for shorter syntax, which is part of its purpose.
Yeah the shorter syntax becomes even more apparent when you're piping/
threading through one-arg functions where it also saves on
parenthesis, as the - and pipe macros expand to a list if
necessary.
E.g. this code in a comment
Dare I suggest it - might be an interesting 'name' for 'pipe' given
that - calls in prefix and 'pipe' calls in postfix. But I'd rather
not see it contending with Datalog which - is nice to use. | isn't
'official', but it works fine... and aren't 'officially' usable in
symbols either so why
On Feb 12, 12:15 pm, Meikel Brandmeyer m...@kotka.de wrote:
I dislike this strategy for two related reasons: (1) It cannont be
nested. Here is a pseudo-example:
(?- 2 ... some computations ... (f (?- ... I don't have access to
the outer ? anymore... )))
(2) Shadowing user bindings.
+1 as well for pipe and let-
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
I like the pipe macro. I get a bit cognitively overloaded when
map/filter/reduce are nested, I think it is made worse because they have 2 or
more arguments, so you have to do a lot of jumping around to follow them. The
left-to-right style is much easier to follow.
I'm not sure about let-
The pipe macro is definitely not a new idea btw. It's taken from a
thread posted on another lisp group.
Someone posted a silly inflammatory attack on lisp, contrasting unix:
cat a b c | grep xyz | sort | uniq
to how they'd imagine it in lisp:
(uniq (sort (grep xyz (cat a b c
A poster
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM, MattH mbhut...@gmail.com wrote:
The pipe macro is definitely not a new idea btw. It's taken from a
thread posted on another lisp group.
Someone posted a silly inflammatory attack on lisp, contrasting unix:
cat a b c | grep xyz | sort | uniq
to how they'd
Hi,
Am 10.02.2009 um 23:34 schrieb Michael Reid:
Maybe _ is appropriate?
= (let- _ (+ 1 2) (* 2 _) (+ _ 1))
7
= (let- _ [1 2 3] (map inc _) (reduce + _) (+ _ 3))
12
Or maybe ? ?
I would not use _. _ is often used as don't care variable
name. And this is certainly not what we want here.. ;)
Maybe _ is appropriate?
= (let- _ (+ 1 2) (* 2 _) (+ _ 1))
7
= (let- _ [1 2 3] (map inc _) (reduce + _) (+ _ 3))
12
Or maybe ? ?
Don't forget the wide variety of unicode symbols you have at your
disposal:
user= (let- ★ 2 (+ ★ 3) (- 10 ★ ) (map #(* ★ %) [2 3 4]))
(10 15 20)
I like that implementation. The recursive call makes it much cleaner.
A slight improvement (?) yet:
(defmacro let-
Provide a name that will be bound to the result of the first form.
For each additional form, the variable will be
used in the evaluation, and then rebound to the result
I like that implementation. The recursive call makes it much cleaner.
A slight improvement (?) yet:
(defmacro let-
Provide a name that will be bound to the result of the first form.
For each additional form, the variable will be
used in the evaluation, and then rebound to the result
Hi,
I want to suggest a pipe macro for dealing with collection streams,
as a one-line variation on the built in - macro.
Instead of writing a nested stream like this:
; Take the first 3 elements of the odd numbers in the range 1 to
20
(take 3 (filter odd? (range 1 20)))
you can write this:
13 matches
Mail list logo
