2009/2/18 Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com>

>
> 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.


Maybe I miss the point totally, but didn't the recent change give the
function 'next the meaning of not forcing the seq ?

So &next instead of &rest ? ... and maybe either &rest or &next , and not
just & anymore ?


>
>
> --
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to