Hi, Am 26.01.2009 um 06:05 schrieb e:
interesting to me that <> wasn't used for anything to add to the "literal syntax". folks in another thread were using sequences for set theory. But maybe there needs to be a set notation. If that makes sense, {} should be sets, just like in math, <> should be vectors, just like in math, and [] could be maps. I know, I know, it's kinda late to be arguing to change this stuff. Another idea that fits in better would be to use <> as an alternative to quoting a list . . . and still not do anything for sets.
There is already literal syntax for all the collection types:
- [] => vector
- {} => hash-map
- #{} => set
What are you missing?
Try to blend out experiences from other fields. Eg. we never
used <> for vectors in math, only (). So even this comparison
is only your personal experience. It's good to have such
experience when learning a new language, but it should not
get into your way. Whenever you end up with "But in this other
field/language we do/have/can ....", you should take a step
back and forget about the other field/language and look
simply at Clojure. We cannot cater all the previous experiences
of all the Clojure users....
Just my 2ยข.
Sincerely
Meikel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
