> This would be most likely java interop, ie. ->. > There the main arguments are 99% of the times the first or the last ones. So > -> or ->> will work
OK, so what happens when one of the functions takes it in the front, and the other in the back? Or what happens when you're using a piece of code that doesn't follow either convention? Are you saying such code doesn't exist? In both those cases, -> and ->> become useless. - Greg On Jul 6, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote: > Hi, > > Am 06.07.2010 um 20:09 schrieb Greg: > >> On Jul 6, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Stuart Halloway wrote: >> >>> (1) Clojure APIs are very careful about parameter order. >> >> And what if you want to use a function outside of the Clojure API? > > This would be most likely java interop, ie. ->. > >> Or a function *in* the Clojure API that doesn't follow the parameter order >> you want? > > There the main arguments are 99% of the times the first or the last ones. So > -> or ->> will work. > >>> (2) -> and ->> encourage chains of operations that build on that parameter >>> order. >> >> Why is that important? > > Because consistency matters. > >>> (3) I haven't seen a lot of examples where something like --> solves real >>> problems in code. >> >> I haven't coded long enough in Clojure to provide you with any examples, but >> it seems like hoping that the functions you're going to use are going to >> have the correct parameter order is silly. Why hope when you can guarantee >> it won't matter? >> >> Anyways, you haven't seen a lot of examples simply because people don't have >> a --> to use. Thus they're are forced to work around it, for example by >> replacing calls to -> or ->> with the corresponding standard calls >> (postfix/prefix? don't remember what that style is called). >> >> If it existed, you would see it being used. > > I don't think so. For example sequence or not-empty exist. But I never needed > one of them in two and half years of Clojure coding. And I can't remember to > have seen a single usage in other peoples code. (of course an absolutely > representative sample... ;)) > >> Yes, let's handicap ourselves and then disparage a useful macro as >> "unneeded." The -> and ->> macros aren't needed either, so why are they >> there? 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 > > Can we tune down the rethoric a little bit? These issues were discussed in > depth several times now. And the fact that such a macro was not included in > core should give a hint, that the pain can't be that big. > > Sincerely > Meikel > > -- > 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 -- 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
