Doesn't this amount to arguing over what color the bike shed should be? [1]
Is there anything I could do with Clojure with an aesthetically different
(but functionally identical ) set notation that I cannot do with Clojure
right now?
Anyway, no matter how beautiful a new set notation might be (not that I
personally think {{}} is beautiful), it seems that having two notations for
one concept would be more confusing than having one notation for one
concept. You *know* that this question would appear on a regular basis,
"What is the difference between #{} and {{}}?"
[1] http://bikeshed.com/
On Friday, March 23, 2012 8:44:27 PM UTC-7, Cedric Greevey wrote:
>
> #{foo bar baz} is somewhat ugly. It occurs to me that one could modify
> the reader to additionally accept
>
> {{foo bar baz}}
>
> without breaking anything. It's not possible for it to be a valid map
> literal, because the outer {...} pair has only one object inside it
> and a map literal requires an even number of objects (zero, two, four
> ...), so right now {{foo bar baz}} will just throw a
> CompilerException, and so will {{foo bar baz quux}} even though the
> inner {...} pair then has an even number of objects. Making the reader
> treat that as a set literal is therefore a purely additive change.
>
> It's one character longer than #{foo bar baz} but it looks nicer, IMO,
> and still shows the cousin-ship between sets and maps by using the
> same choice among {}, [], ().
>
>
--
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
