Konrad, Im not following where this would be a problem in terms of optimization. In the definition for map, all that needs to be added is a check for a symbol? and the resulting sequence could look and act exactly like it would, had you manually added the #(.method %) right?
If the technical obstacle can be overcome, which Im confident that it can, then regarding semantics this have come up several times, where people intuitively assume that it works, which I completely understand and think it should, so it wouldn't be adding a layer of complexity. Lau On 19 Mar., 08:46, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote: > On 18 Mar 2010, at 16:55, Per Vognsen wrote: > > > Is there any reason why a .method occurrence in non-operator position > > doesn't just do the closure wrapping automagically? > > There is two reasons I can think of, though of course I can't know if > they are the real ones. > > First, a technical reason: .method is handled as part of macro > expansion: > > user> (macroexpand-1 '(.hashCode 3)) > (. 3 hashCode) > > The result is a special form for Java interop. Symbols in non-operator > positions are not macro-expanded, so some other mechanism would have > to be invented to handle them in a special way. It would in fact > create a first "special symbol" category, complicating the semantics > of the language, so this is not just a technical reason. > > Second, a semantic reason: Java method calls are resolved statically > if possible (you can use reflection warnings to find out where this > fails), making them very fast. Creating and calling a closure is a > much slower operation. Rich has stated at several occasions that he > considers performance in important part of the interface of a > function, so making a clear syntactic distinction between a fast and a > slow operation would fit well with that point of view. > > Konrad. -- 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
