On 23 March 2010 20:16, ataggart <alex.tagg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 1:04 pm, Robert Lally <rob.la...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 23 March 2010 12:31, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > one difference which shows up everywhere, is the method and > > > constructor notation. While in the book the old is used - (. obj > > > (method args ...)) - one should stick to the new one - (.method obj > > > args ...). Similar for Contructors. (note trailing dot) and Static/ > > > methodCalls. > > > -- > > > > Is there a technical reason that one should prefer the (.method object) > > syntax over the (. object method) variant or is it purely a style that > the > > community has converged on? > > The latter as it more closely resembles the arrangement of function > calls.
Thanks Alex, glad to know I'm not doing something that'll have unexpected side-effects. As an aside, in my mind I treated . as the 'method call' operator and then (. object arg) felt just as lispy as (+ 1 2) Rob Lally. -- 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.
