Hello,

there has been plenty of time to speak about that in the previous thread on
the subject, and it's a shame these interesting proposals had to wait for
the release of the functionality to pop up :-).

But I think it's my fault: when nobody did additional comments on the
thread, I considered one of the last proposals as silently accepted by most,
and since it was one of Rich's proposals to use .?. and -?>, I took them. So
I did not close the "brainstorming" with a "if everybody agrees, I'll use
these names ... and write the patch".

Concerning the fact that .. could be removed from clojure.core, why not. I
suggest that the .?. version be removed when (if) .. is removed.

Concerning the names, shouldn't maybe-> be reserved for the real monadic
version (I haven't seen how monads are implemented in clojure, and I'm not
sure the signature of a maybe-> monad would be the same as -?>) ?

Regards,

-- 
Laurent

2009/3/23 Graham Fawcett <graham.fawc...@gmail.com>

>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi <squee...@mac.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 22, 2009, at 4:43 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> >
> >> Is .?. necessary? -> does the same job as .. by
> >> virtue of the .method notation, but is more general.
> >> So, why not get rid of .. and .?. completely?
> >
> > That sounds right to me, Meikel. I'm in favor of keeping only -?> .
>
> Might I suggest "maybe->" ? This function has a strong similarity to
> the Maybe monad in Haskell and similar languages.
>
> "and->" would be another less Haskelly candidate, and is reminiscent
> of Scheme's "and-let*" which is also sort-of similar.
>
> Best,
> Graham
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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