Sorry if this has already been addressed... I can understand both Ron's pain and the reasoning why it's not possible to have Haskell style currying; however, I wonder if there's a compromise possible.
Right now, we: (map #(+ 3 %) [1 2 3] or (map (partial + 3) [1 2 3]) The (partial + 3) is a bit too verbose for me, and I can define my one partial fn if I want. (def % partial) (map (% + 3) [1 2 3]) That works, and I do prefer it, but I think I'd rather have (map %(+ 3) [1 2 3]) This solution feels like a shorthand for #(... %), but it also feels familiar because I'm putting the % before for parenthesis. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the impact of adding another reader macro would be, so maybe this is an unrealistic solution. I'd be interested to hear feedback. Cheers, Jay -- 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
