licked' into place and started making sense.
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:11:46 PM UTC-4, James Reeves wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 6 April 2014 21:50, Joshua Brulé >wrote:
>
>>
>> But it still seems to me that in the case *exactly three forms* - binary
>> function
resent? It
> doesn't represent anything new, just a different way of writing lists.
>
> Imagine if you proposed something similar for JSON. Would it make sense to
> have an infix notation syntax for a data-only syntax? If not, then it
> probably doesn't make sense for Clojure.
Proposal:
For an *odd* number of forms a, x, b, ...
{a x b x c ...} => (x a b c ...)
{a x b y c ...} => (*nfx* a x b y c ...)
Reasoning:
Even after a lot of practice, prefix math is still harder (at least for
me...) to read than non-prefix math. The [], () and <> matching delimiters
are alrea
