--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Paul Barry wrote: > syntactic sugar is not syntax?
I think that depends on which particular nits are being picked. Is it strictly true that Clojure has "no syntax"? Meh--probably not. (defun foo [bar] ...) has more unique characters than (defun foo (bar) ...) or (define (foo bar) ...) but is it a *meaningful* difference? Is '(foo) meaningfully different than (quote (foo))? Again, more unique characters... but is it in the language, or is it in the reader? They're called reader macros for a reason. All in all, not something I'll be terribly concerned with either way. 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
