Hi, Why not do things the other way around, and instead using partial to curry the first argument, just repeat it as the second argument. i.e., (map + [1 2 3] (repeat 3)) . This approach seems to me as much more readable and clean.
Yoav On Dec 29, 4:22 pm, Jay Fields <j...@jayfields.com> wrote: > 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
