On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 5:09:20 AM UTC+2, Alexis King wrote:
> While in St. Louis, I had a brief conversation with Jay, Alex, and Jack about
> how we all happen to have our own implementation of Clojure’s threading
> macro. That macro is called -> in Clojure, but I believe Greg’s rackjure
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 23:02:23 -0500,
Jack Firth wrote:
> If this isn't going to be added to the core (and I don't think it
> should), then there would need to be some work done on exposure and
> making sure everyone who wants this functionality knows "look here
> first and only roll your own if this
> Duplication is an uncomfortably common problem in Lispy circles, but
> fragmentation is never a good thing
To be fair, there are plenty of good reasons why duplication / fragmentation
would exist, many of them ultimately beneficial to the underlying system.
Fragmentation is not per se bad. St
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 12:02 AM, Jack Firth wrote:
> As for the actual package, I'm a strong proponent of a non-macro version
> that's just the reverse of compose, mostly because it plays very nicely with
> anonymous macro functions like fancy-app. I'm a bit biased as that's the one
> I made in
I definitely like standard packages, but how will we avoid the problem of this
becoming just another threading macro package instead of an actual standard? I
also feel like something similar would be useful for anonymous functions, what
with curly-fn, rackjure, fancy-app, the cut and cute macros
5 matches
Mail list logo