e <evier...@gmail.com> writes: > Can you imagine how disruptive it would be at this point to do it the > other way around? If you were starting out today without any Lisp > baggage, it seems TOTALLY obvious to me that lists would have been (1 > 2 3), and the *calling of a function* would have been the different > thing ... now that these other data structures represent themselves > symbolically (vectors, sets, maps).
Interesting, although in the case of idiomatic Clojure it's actually very rare to want to use a list literal. Most of the places you'd use a list literal in other lisps, a vector probably makes more sense in Clojure. I'm also not sure the code-is-data thing works so well when you reverse quotation like that as it means you'd have quotes on every nested level instead of just the outside, which would make macros more difficult to write (at least without any other changes), but I may be misunderstanding your idea. -- 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
