> I understood David's comment differently, that the current threading > macros exist so that explicit bindings for each threaded form are not > needed for they very specific cases they intend to simplify. I'm not saying > your macro is dumb, I just don't find the sugar particularly tasty. ;-) > That's indeed quite different how I understood his comment. For me it meant that the old threading macros like -> and ->> caused people to use the `let [x ... x ... x ... ]` forms. The reason why people would do that in my interpretation is because they needed to thread trough varying parameter order. The x-s for me there try to emphasize the rebinding of the same symbol, i.e. one thread of bindings. The rebinding of the same symbol though, like what as-> does, removes the possibility of using destructuring, one of my goodies point above, unless you thread through structurally similar return values. Also, in this mail conversation there was no mentioning of the other new threaded forms besides as->, so I am not sure why he would be referring to some->, cond->, etc. Since that's quite a big difference in interpretation, I would like to hear David's point on this.
Btw, I don't like sugary-sweet dreams either, rather the bitter delirium of a strong Belgian ale... rare to find here in the UK, but sometimes you can get lucky ;) -- -- 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.
