On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Thorsten Wilms <t...@freenet.de> wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 06:45 PM, jaime wrote:
>> Are there other functions for the same purpose?
>
> I don't see how there could be, for the very same purpose. Though you might
> want to consider splitting up functions some more, instead.
I think he means "other functions whose main use is as arguments to
HOFs, rather than called directly".
In which case the functions returned by "constantly" form another
family of such. Though we could get rid of that if we added a reader
macro analogous to #(x) but that expanded into (fn [] x) rather than
(fn [] (x)) as #(x) does. Perhaps #[x]? This could replace constantly,
e.g. #[0] == (constantly 0), but also do a few other things, like
#[[%1 (* 2 %2)]] takes two arguments and producing a vector with one
of the arguments and then the other doubled, which saves relative to
#(vector %1 (* 2 %2)) and makes it more visually clear that it outputs
vectors. On the other hand, the same argument can be made against
#[0], that this looks like it ought to return [0] rather than 0 when
called. On the gripping hand, #{} is accepted as indicating sets,
rather than functions that evaluate to maps. :)
--
Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?!
Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true
hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more
civilized age.
--
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
