I wanted to see how long this thread would go before someone linked to the old stuff. :-)
Despite turning up repeatedly, the issue has never been put to bed. I suspect it is the name. There has been no consensus, as this thread demonstrates. I vote for one I haven't seen yet. `=>`. It's two characters and in the style of the other threaders. I'm torn on the binding form. On one hand, it is misleading because [x 1 y 2] is illegal. But something [[x y] (function-that-returns-a- pair ...)] could be handy for threading through a series of functions that return pairs. -M On Feb 8, 3:52 pm, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 08.02.2011 um 22:11 schrieb B Smith-Mannschott: > > > Ah. Indeed. And Mark Fredrickson's "let->" is equivalent to my > > thread-with macro. I even considered the name let->. I guess there's > > no wheel that can't be reinvented. ;-) > > Yeah. Once per year or so. ;) > > 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
