Actually, it was one of the features I liked about Arc, which is built on scheme.
That being said Arc doesn't have as many data type's or structures, quite likely making it better suited for building generic functions, most of which can be applied across the majority of data types/structure's. Clojure, on the other hand, has a plethora of options for data type/ structures and with that (I notice) comes with a small price tag - often having create more code to handle & convert data more often. Overall I really enjoy using Clojure and do have an appreciation for it having the rich feature set (no pun intended with a 'Rich feature set') . I know my girlfriend doesn't think my jokes are funny either. ^_^ "...but they should be named something that doesn't carry so much intuitive baggage already" Not sure I understand this. I hadn't realized there was pre-existing baggage with the names, but I will defer. On Dec 1, 5:54 pm, Ryan Sattler <xgravi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd be highly dubious of this even if it was free, performance-wise. > > and < are not clearly defined on strings and in general this kind of > thing seems like an inroad for the kind of baffling implicit > conversion-type behaviours you can see in PHP or JavaScript. Functions > that do something like those in the OP might be useful, but they > should be named something that doesn't carry so much intuitive baggage > already. > > -- > Ryan Sattler -- 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
