It is fair to say that, if applied uncritically, for example by beginners who haven't yet gotten the hang of it, thrushes really can create a mess. For example:
(->> x (/ 2) (if done? "stop")) This really does break the "application chaining" mental shortcut and forces you to mentally unapply the thrush. On Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:44:59 AM UTC+1, Mike Norman wrote: > > This is absolutely the wrong understanding of the benefits of Clojure's > syntax. Its main benefit is not minimalism. Its main benefit is simplicity, > which is less akin to ordinality than it is to orthogonality. In this case, > there is a tool that just does chaining, which allows you to compose calls > in a more readable way, but by using existing pieces. It decomplects order > and application for the sake of, at least, readability. -- -- 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.
