FWIW, I find my threading macro to be very powerful, pretty clear when used complicatingly, and at about power-level 9,000:
https://github.com/jeapostrophe/exp/blob/master/threading-arrow.rkt My opinion is to include something like this in remix along with some nice syntax for cut (what ignorant people call "function literals".) Probably by replacing the (<> 1) in my ~> with _ and _.1 and by writing cut as λ.(+ $.0 $.2) using _, λ, and $ as dot transformers. Jay On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jack Firth <jackhfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree about using the function form for flexibility. (Alliteration!) The > macro form should be optimized for simple cases, because macros by nature > are less flexible. If you have a complex case, write actual functions. > You'll spend less time wrangling the syntax system that way. > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Alexis King <lexi.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > My macro and Jack Firth's function both allow that. >> >> >> Sounds like the solution is to go with a function instead of a macro then. >> If you want that flexibility, I don’t think there’s any reason to stick with >> a macro, anyway. The point-free package is very nice. >> >> Alexis > > -- Jay McCarthy http://jeapostrophe.github.io "Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great." - D&C 64:33 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
