+1 for something like (let->). I don't imagine myself being confused by the reserved symbol being bound to different values in each successive form, or, in any case, would gladly trade that possibility for the advantage of being able to place the special symbol anywhere in the forms.
Somewhat along the lines of what Miekel says, if the special symbol is not user-defined, the macro could be named after the special symbol, e.g. x->, or, (keeping with the the "threading the needle" metaphor in ->'s docs) ndl->, or with the pipe metaphor, P->. The latter has the advantage that capitals aren't idiomatic for variable names in Clojure. In any case, I vote for approaching Konrad Hinsen about putting this in clojure.contrib.macros when a naming convention is agreed on. Perry --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
