What a twist. Does any of the participants care to comment on this one? A hundred posts of bashing a person from the position of authority while the macro in question already sits in Core. I am against the usage of it myself, and closely followed previous discussions on this topic to understand the arguments being brought there; but arguing against something you already accepted is beyond my comprehension, tbh.
On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 6:07:53 AM UTC+3, Gary Johnson wrote: > > Ugh. What a pointless thread. Someone could have just said: > > --- > It's already in clojure 1.5. The form you are looking for is called as->. > Your original example would be written like this: > > (as-> 3 x (+ 1 x 4) (prn "answer:" x)) > --- > > Done. Yeesh. > > On Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:34:02 PM UTC-4, Jeremy Heiler wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Daniel Dinnyes <dinn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Just made a quick search on `main arguments` on both Google and >> Wikipedia. >> > Do you mean the arguments in `public static void main (String[] args)`? >> If >> > not please provide some definition what do you mean by main arguments. >> Else >> > the point is meaningless. >> >> He means the arguments you are threading. >> > -- -- 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.
