> On Oct 8, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Jack Firth <jackhfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Looking at that one, I'm against back-referencing N clauses with (<> n). I > find it very difficult to read, and it strikes me as particularly fragile if > you're inserting or removing steps into the flow as you edit it.
> Trying to count back steps (especially if they're not formatted to all be one > per line) is mental juggling I don't want to do, and it muddies my thought > process. If I really want to go to that effort to avoid naming things, I'll > use currying and point free composition operations. +1 I agree completely. > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com > <mailto:jay.mccar...@gmail.com>> wrote: > 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 > <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 -- 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.
