I don't see why this should be arcane. it is quite simple to understand. but yes, you do have to understand it. like anything.
this is good sugar...probably a fructose derivative... On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 02:00:13 UTC+11, 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 ;) > > 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.
