On further thought, it will be a breaking change

(def f<x> 1)

(let [x 1]
  f<x>)

% would work better.

Ambrose

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Peter Danenberg <p...@roxygen.org> wrote:

> Since square brackets have been usurped by vectors, angle brackets
> could be used to approximate M-expressions.
>
> Quoth Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant on Boomtime, the 70th of The Aftermath:
> > Why not use f<x> ?
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Louis Yu Lu <louisy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Instead of using overloaded (), may be f[x] will cause less trouble,
> > > and more inline with clojure's syntax as [ ] already being used for
> > > defining the arguments of the function.
> > >
> > > Louis
> > >
> > > On Dec 27, 5:26 pm, Gert Verhoog <m...@gertalot.com> wrote:
> > > > On 26/12/2011, at 6:23 PM, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My proposition is enhance Clojure to accept both (f x) and f(x)
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately, I don't see that happening, for several reasons (many of
> > > which have been mentioned). It adds complexity, causes confusion and
> > > inconsistent coding styles and it will break everything that parses
> > > s-expressions (data = code after all). Imagine trying to read lisp code
> > > that is a mix-n-match of the following:
> > > >
> > > > ;; the following would be equivalent:
> > > > (g (f a b))
> > > > (g f(a b))
> > > > g((f a b))
> > > > g(f(a b))
> > > >
> > > > ;; the following would be equivalent:
> > > > ((f a) b)
> > > > (f(a) b)
> > > > (f a)(b)
> > > > f(a)(b)
> > > >
> > > > FOUR different ways of expressing ((f a) b). How is that helping
> those
> > > trying to learn Clojure?
> > > >
> > > > Also, note that (g f(a b)) and (g f (a b)) have very different
> > > semantics, even though the only difference is the added whitespace
> between
> > > two tokens.
> > > >
> > > > If you stick with the elegant simplicity of s-expressions for a few
> more
> > > weeks, I promise that you won't even notice it anymore and you'll find
> that
> > > it's perfectly readable.
> > > >
> > > > cheers,
> > > > gert
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> --
> 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

Reply via email to