On May 2, 11:14 pm, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-googlegroups.
620...@mired.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 13:06:56 +1000
> To get behavior similar to the vector constructs, you want to use
> list, which works like vector, except returning a list instead of a
> vector: (list 1 2 3 (print :hello)). It seems that what's missing here
> is a syntax for (list. I'm not sure it's needed, as it never appeared
> in LISP, but #[ seems to be the logical candidate:
>
> { - hash-map #{ - hash-set [ - vector #[ - list
>
Hmmh. I haven't read the discussion very carefully but it seems there
might be a fundamental misunderstanding here somewhere.
The thing is that (foo bar) *is* a list of two symbols, even if not
quoted. It just so happens that when such a list is passed to the
evaluator, it evaluates it as a function call. Similarly, [foo bar] is
*not* a shortcut for (vector foo bar); it *is* a vector of two
symbols, and vectors just have different evaluation semantics. The
same applies to sets and maps.
The best you'd get out of a #[foo bar] is a simple reader macro that
expands to (list foo bar) and that's really just a waste of macro
characters, not to mention confusing. Or you would have to have a list
type that isn't evaluated as a function call. But that path leads to
insanity.
--
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
