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
