Thank you for the explanation, it makes sense to me now. On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 8:03:41 PM UTC+3, David Nolen wrote: > > While the macro can do what the original enhancement request suggested > that's not the actual problem the new threading macros were intended to > solve. They were primarily added to eliminate: > > (let [x ... > x ... > x ...] > ...) > > Which is pretty ugly and also it's pretty easy to get into trouble. > > David > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Alexander Yakushev > <unl...@bytopia.org>wrote: > >> 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 clo...@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+u...@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+u...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > >
On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 8:03:41 PM UTC+3, David Nolen wrote: > > While the macro can do what the original enhancement request suggested > that's not the actual problem the new threading macros were intended to > solve. They were primarily added to eliminate: > > (let [x ... > x ... > x ...] > ...) > > Which is pretty ugly and also it's pretty easy to get into trouble. > > David > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Alexander Yakushev > <unl...@bytopia.org<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> 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 clo...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> 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+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- -- 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.
