I think it's simpler just to have a consistent syntax, personally. Otherwise, why not python or haskell style syntax for the language? because code is data. So now there's a special case where the data is backwards.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 27.02.2009 um 19:39 schrieb John D. Hume: > > As a Java/Ruby guy who is not used to reading inside out, I'm curious >> as to whether people who ARE accustomed to LISP find the -> macro >> distracting since it flops things around. Are there circumstances >> where you prefer it? >> > > I have a Scheme background and I like -> a lot. I would prefer it > always over > > (foo (bar (baz (frobnicate a-thing)) bla)). > > Eh? To which function belongs the bla argument? I think > > (-> a-thing frobnicate baz (bar bla) foo) > > is much clearer. > > Sincerely > Meikel > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
