The compositional advantage with cojure's convention collection-arg first is pretty much the point. -> is to pretial, what ->> is to partial. The improvement is more than syntactical: pretial lets you swap out or preprocess whole arms of the computation at the value level. Macro's don't help with this.
Sure, the microbenchmark shows a 15% slowdown against rigidly inlining the operations, which seems reasonable to me for an additional degree of freedom. Certainly, for all of my setup code, I'm willing to pay those 15%, just to save my pinkie those shift hits and to be able to display 2 pages of code side-by-side (yeah, I know, real programmers aren't afraid of writing more than 80 characters ;-) In my workflow, examples are plenty, whenever I work with data trees, more than one level deep. Like Om app states, systems of stuartsierra's components or even just xml processing. Often I find myself passing something amounting to #(-> ...) into those update fns, that `would` let me pass additional args, but I can't use them, simply because I want to schedule more than a single update function. So there, apply-to and pretial are the missing pieces to retrofit those additional arguments for the update steps. I haven't seen your arrow macros. How are they different from clojure's? -- 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/d/optout.
