On Monday, March 11, 2013 4:00:13 PM UTC+1, edw...@kenworthy.info wrote: > 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 ;) >
Have you ever written any Java, C++, or a similar language that uses the dot notation to invoke methods? The concept of "method chaining" should then be familiar to you, and useful in transferring that intuition into Clojure's thrushes. I remember my first encounter with them, I was confused a bit, but it went away very quickly---after a week or so. Basically, you use them a couple of times, get confident about what they do, and before you know it they are second nature. -Marko -- -- 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.
