ok ok. . . .but yall made lists functions . .. so I could ask the same question of
if foo(3): bar(3). if foo a function or a list? It looks like a function. but it's a list, too. . . .because in clojure lists are functions . . . .but only if they take one argument. I didn't start the confusion. (bar 3) is somehow normal . . . . but (bar) isn't? (nth 3 bar) is what's "normal". (bar 3) make (bar) almost work . . . .enough so that the error that is produced is off topic hard to understand, but hey, that's cool with me. I get it now. I can see how experience with such errors will point me to the right place. () is a function call unless quoted so that it can be data . . . or something . . . .right? it didn't make sense to have parens there . . . just a habbit from C++. On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM, James Reeves <weavejes...@googlemail.com>wrote: > > On Jan 13, 6:45 pm, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > sure . . . I'm just impressed with how many things "just work", and this > > could be one more. Not enough args, but you know what I wanted it to > mean. > > There's no ambiguity. > > This is a bad idea. It just adds confusion with no real benefit. > Reading the code would be harder, and you'd wind up with all sorts of > odd behavior if (nil) evaluated to nil. > > Or to put it another way, imagine if you allowed this behavior in > Python: > > if foo(): bar() > > Are foo and bar functions, or lists? > > - 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
