On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 18, 11:04 am, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Rob <rob.nikan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I'm wondering if I found a bug. I have the latest source from svn >> > (r1291). >> >> > user=> (bean 1) >> > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Wrong number of args passed to: >> > core$bean--5161$fn--5179$thisfn >> >> You sure did. The conversion to lazy-seq code appears to introduce a >> paren typo and an incorrect nil pun. Patch attached. >> > > Patch applied, svn 1293 - thanks! > >> Rich, I think it'd be pretty useful to have as you mentioned in IRC a >> variant of & destructuring that provided an unforced lazy-seq. It >> seems pretty common to want, in the body of a lazy-seq, a destructured >> 'first' but an unforced 'rest'. This is already the third or fourth >> time I've wanted to be able to do something like: >> >> (fn thisfn [plseq] >> (lazy-seq >> (when-let [[pkey &rest etc] plseq] >> (cons (new clojure.lang.MapEntry pkey (v pkey)) >> (thisfn etc))))) >> > > Yes, sure. It just comes down to the name: > > &rest > && > > others?
Of those I prefer &rest because its meaning is more explicit. -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
