> Quick! Should (~>> (~>> a b) (~>> c d)) be equal to (~>> (b a) (~>> c d)) ?
Well, I wouldn't want to write or read code like that. If I'm using a threading macro, at all, it's to reduce nesting, and emphasize the "flat", "pipeline" quality of some computations. As a result I'm not eager to write or read nested threading macros. :) Honestly I hardly use threading macros anymore. I used them a fair amount in Frog, but that's a relatively "pipeline-ish" app, with lots of "take X and run it through this series of transformations". Most of my projects don't really have that quality, or at least I haven't found it as helpful to express them that way. As for a threading macro being faster than a thrush function: Although it is, instead how I'd put it is that it's "not slower than" traditional nested applications. For example you can "de-nest" existing code and not worry that you also made it slower. Because it's expanding to the same nested applications. It's just expressed in a flat postfix syntax. IFF doing so actually makes it easier to read and maintain, is what I ask myself these days. -- 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.
