But to understand the first you have to expand it into the second- which means understanding the arcane squiggle -> and how it differs from the equally arcane squiggle ->>. Nasty, sticky, syntactic sugar :)
I suspect that early on, still being a Clojure noobie, I'll stick with the 'proper' Lisp forms and no doubt as I become more experienced I'll pick more of the arcane Clojure idioms ;) On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:58:29 AM UTC, edw...@kenworthy.info wrote: > > So I understand that: > > (-> foo bar wibble) > > is equivalent to > > (wibble (bar (foo))) > > With the advantage that the latter version is better, in the sense that > it's clearer what the final result is (the result of the call to wobble). > > What I don't understand is the need for -> the only thing it seems to do > is make something Lispy appear to be imperative. > > Is that it? > -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
