On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 10:04 -0800, Evan Gamble wrote: > I find let? useful and readable, as do others. There's a bit of brain- > training necessary to read it, but not a lot. Probably no more than > the keyword clauses of the "for" comprehension. The argument that > decades of Lisp programmers haven't invented this particular > "chucklehead" macro is a bit weak, since there have been many other > similar macros. > > ...and I have learned to love nil, even the :else nil clause that > repels you.
There is a bit of brain-training necessary to read code with parens but not a lot. In fact, my editor can read paren code. The let? syntax breaks code walkers. The let? syntax breaks pretty printers. The let? syntax "complexes" read. See the loop package in Common Lisp. Some people swear by it, others swear at it. The idea isn't new. If you want "readable code" write a literate program. Literate programs communicate from person to person rather than having the person "decode" your idea from the code. If you understand the idea, any syntax is easy to read. Tim Daly -- 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
