On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Greg <g...@kinostudios.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Wilson MacGyver wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Stuart Halloway > > <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In my experience, unneeded versatility == support headache. > > > > I couldn't agree more. I'm happy to see selection of what goes into > > core and contrib has become more selective. > > Yes, let's handicap ourselves and then disparage a useful macro as > "unneeded." >
What handicap? You wrote a macro that works for you that you can use in your own code. Aren't macros great? :) > The -> and ->> macros aren't needed either, so why are they there? > I've found a real need for -> ->>. I haven't personally felt a strong desire for --> ... yet. > While we're at it, we should make it so that the + function takes only two > arguments because any more leads to "unneeded versatility" and therefore, > apparently, to "support headache." :-p > > - Greg Now you're just getting contentious ;) On a style note, you should follow the Lisp convention on the location of closing parens. David -- 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
