Hi, On Jul 2, 12:18 pm, Walter van der Laan <waltervanderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example you can point your browser > athttp://getclojure.org:8080/examples/reduce > for reduce examples. Is it necessary to have >250 examples for a function which has effectively five variations? (reduce + []) (reduce + [1]) (reduce + [1 2 3]) (reduce + 0 []) (reduce + 0 [1 2 3]) Then there are examples like this one: (reduce '* '(1 2 3)) Someone who is new to Clojure and tries to understand reduce... Does he understand why the result is 3? A result which relies on a not very well-known fact, that you can actually call symbols like keywords for map lookup with up to two arguments. (I bet there quite a few of "seasoned" clojurians who didn't know that) I - if I was a newbie to the language - would mainly think: wtf? Additionally the particular example above doesn't even make sense. I'm all for examples, but please: clear examples focusing on the thing being demonstrated. Symbol calling or showing that [1 2 3] and (list 1 2 3) can be interchanged in the example above are nice to know, but don't help to understand reduce itself. They should go to their own sections in a tutorial. The 0.02€ of a guy who has not put effort in creating examples for the core API. Sincerely Meikel PS: I also think the examples should demonstrate idiomatic clojure. [1 2 3] is idiomatic while '(1 2 3) is not. Whatever we put in examples will show up in code. So be it [] vs. '() or (.java interop) vs. (. interop (java)) - we should pay attention! -- 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
