I've been using & and p, respectively.
On Oct 18, 2:21 pm, B Smith-Mannschott <bsmith.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 20:04, Stuart Halloway
>
> <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I find the suite of ->, ->>, anonymous functions, partial, and comp
> > sufficient for my needs, with each having its place.
>
> > My only grumble is that "partial" is a lot of characters. I would love
> > a one-character alternative, if it could be reasonably intuitive.
>
> F# uses >> for functional composition and |> for partial evaluation.
> Both as infix operators, of course. Perhaps they'd work for clojure's
> prefix syntax?
>
> (def >> comp)
> (def |> partial)
>
> what do you think?
>
>
>
> > Stu
>
> >> On Oct 16, 10:22 pm, Sean Devlin <francoisdev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> In order to generate closures, every function should take parameters
> >>> first, and data at the end, so that they work well with partial.
>
> >> It's really hard to come up with a consistent practice that works well
> >> for all scenarios. Even clojure.core is inconsistent in this regard
> >> -- the sequence fns take the seq at the end, the collection functions
> >> (like assoc) take the collection first.
>
> >> Whichever way you design your functions, half the time the arguments
> >> will be in the wrong place for what someone wants to do. If you want
> >> a purely compositional style, the only way to do it is to only allow
> >> single-argument functions, a la Haskell.
>
> >> -SS
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
