Thanks Christophe.
Love the book BTW.
cheers
Dave
--
--
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
Hi All
thank you for your answers. I think I now understand (@Gregory - completely
agree about Clojure being pragmatic).
Onwards and Upwards
Kind Regards
Dave
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email
Hi David,
Special forms exist because they have special semantics and evaluation
rules.
Is there some overlap between them? Absolutely: when you have fn you don't
need let. Still we have let.
About reduce: originally reduce was pure clojure with no interop, the
.reduce you see is just for the chu
This shows the pragmatic nature of Clojure. A founding idea of Lisp is that
the whole language can be built up from a handful of simple elements, and
this is a good thing for a lot of reasons. However, practical concerns such
as efficiency and interoperability may lead implementers to access the
Michael Klishin writes:
Hi Michael,
> or http://clojure-doc.org/articles/language/macros.html#special_forms :)
Technically, fn, letfn, and loop are no special forms but macros built
on top of the real special forms fn*, letfn*, and loop*. That
distinction is made for let/let* in the itemize li
Hi Both.
Thank you for your prompt replies. Maybe I'm being purist but if one of the
special forms is the dot you have all of Java to play with so presumably
you could produce any of the other clojure functions. I thought that the
special forms enabled you to produce all other elements of the l
Absolutely! Thanks Michael.
Sent from phone. Please excuse brevity.
On 29 Apr 2013 18:36, "Michael Klishin" wrote:
>
> 2013/4/29 Baishampayan Ghose
>
>> For the real special forms you will have to look at the Clojure
>> compiler source starting from here -
>>
>> https://github.com/clojure/cloju
2013/4/29 Baishampayan Ghose
> For the real special forms you will have to look at the Clojure
> compiler source starting from here -
>
> https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/Compiler.java#L39
>
or http://clojure-doc.org/articles/language/macros.html#special_forms
So reduce here is actually written in Java, hence the call to the
.reduce method. It's perfectly possible to write reduce in pure
Clojure today but it's probably not done that way because of
performance reasons.
For the real special forms you will have to look at the Clojure
compiler source starti
Hi
I am just setting out to learn Clojure (my 2nd attempt) and am starting to
feel more comfortable with the language (and very excited about the
possibilities).
However, I'm reading Clojure Programming (Emerick, Carper and Grand) and
read that Special forms are the primitive building blocks o
10 matches
Mail list logo
