I think they're unaware of the change, as it resulted from a recent
conversation on IRC that same day, where sentiment indicated that kwargs
are generally more trouble than they're worth and there's still confusion
around it.
What started it: the example of keys-destructuring on a list in a let
binding, very odd to explain.
> (let [{:keys [a b c]} '(:a 1 :b 2 :c 3)]
[a b c])
[1 2 3]
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Sean Corfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Jim Crossley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It's not obvious to me why the "bad" release-sharks example on the coding
> standards page [1] is bad. Why should the optional config be the "least
> variance argument"?
>
> I had to look up "laudable", btw. It's one of those good words that sounds
> bad. :)
>
> [1] http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Library+Coding+Standards
>
>
> Well, that's a very recent change. Stuart Halloway's version has been the
> standard for years. Reid made those changes only a few days ago - and I saw
> no discussion of the proposed changes so I'd like to hear from Cognitect's
> folks about this: is it a change of heart by Clojure/core or are they
> unaware of the change?
>
> Sean Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
> An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
>
> "Perfection is the enemy of the good."
> -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)
>
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
