> > Not really. (...) is a non-atomic s-expression. If it's evaluated
> > unquoted, the first nested s-expression is evaluated and if it's not
> > callable an exception is thrown. Macros, special forms (which are sort
> > of like system-internal macros and are used to build all the other
> > macros
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Mike Meyer
wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 02:58:11 -0500
> Ken Wesson wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:15 AM, javajosh wrote:
>> > Mike also points out that things that aren't functions (not used in
>> > that context) can't be aliased with def or use.
>>
>> Really
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 02:58:11 -0500
Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:15 AM, javajosh wrote:
> > Mike and I have had a nice off-line conversation where we enumerated
> > the possible things that can come after open-parens. I listed 7, he
> > added 3:
That wasn't meant to be offline, bu
Hi,
Am 07.12.2010 um 08:58 schrieb Ken Wesson:
> The ns macro is particularly
> guilty of this. I say guilty because I think it's bad design, which I
> guess may have been grandfathered in before the standard was settled
> on to use [] around non-executable lists of data such as binding
> lists.
On 7 December 2010 09:22, javajosh wrote:
> Anyway, I'm aware that open-parens is the signal to Invoke or Call
> something in Clojure - and therefore anything after the parens is
> Callable. It is the incredible diversity of 'Things I Can Invoke' that
> makes the parens difficult to a newb. (Altho
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:22 AM, javajosh wrote:
> As an aside, it would be nice if there was some code convention to
> distinguish between macros and functions, just as there is a
> convention for identifying globals. (doc something) gets to be rather
> tedious to type.
+1, with two provisos: spe
On Dec 6, 11:58 pm, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:15 AM, javajosh wrote:
> > Mike and I have had a nice off-line conversation where we enumerated
> > the possible things that can come after open-parens. I listed 7, he
> > added 3:
>
> >> 1. A value (if the paren has a tick '( )
>
Incidental mutability is the key. Functional programming doesn't
eliminate mutability, it manages it: only the parts of the system
that truly need to change state do so. Everything else is pure and
easy to write and test. Contrast that with imperative programming
where it's hard to tell which s
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:15 AM, javajosh wrote:
> Mike and I have had a nice off-line conversation where we enumerated
> the possible things that can come after open-parens. I listed 7, he
> added 3:
>
>> 1. A value (if the paren has a tick '( )
>> 2. A function.
>> 3. A map - which is a psuedo f
On Dec 6, 6:01 pm, Mike Meyer wrote:
Mike and I have had a nice off-line conversation where we enumerated
the possible things that can come after open-parens. I listed 7, he
added 3:
> 1. A value (if the paren has a tick '( )
> 2. A function.
> 3. A map - which is a psuedo function that take
On Dec 6, 6:24 pm, Robert McIntyre wrote:
> @javajosh You're speaking of the Turing description of computation,
> you might be interested in Church's lambda calculus description which
> works just as well and doesn't use mutability to describe computation,
Thanks, I'll look into that. Is there
@javajosh You're speaking of the Turing description of computation,
you might be interested in Church's lambda calculus description which
works just as well and doesn't use mutability to describe computation,
--Robert McIntyre
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:08 PM, javajosh wrote:
> On Dec 6, 5:40 pm,
1. What is the justification for using a map as a function? I find
this to be very confusing.
In math, a function is a mapping from one set to another, so from that
perspective it makes good sense for a clojure-map to be a function
from its set of keys to its set of values. The justification here
On Dec 6, 5:40 pm, Stuart Halloway wrote:
> The world is a series of immutable states, and the future is a function of
> the past.
> See http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hickey.
My philosophy questions are the most interesting to people, ha!
Neat link. It appears that Hi
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:50:40 -0800 (PST)
javajosh wrote:
> 1. What is the justification for using a map as a function? I find
> this to be very confusing.
The same as using a keyword for a function - it lets you write shorter
code.
> 2. In practice, I find myself wincing when needing to decide w
> 1. Isn't the world actually imperative? And mutable? Collaboration
> *is* a messy proposition in real life. It's hard to fix your car, and
> even harder to have lots of people fix your car. I find the "it models
> the real world better" justification for functional programming rather
> confusing.
>
> 1. Isn't the world actually imperative? And mutable?
If you're a determinist, then no. Life is a function (albeit a multivariable
function), just like sine.
> 2. 'Side-effects' are treated almost as a bad word by most functional
> programming advocates. And yet, aren't ALL programs executed
Hello, I'm a long-time Java programmer who's tired of mutability
getting in my way. I've been largely enjoying the pervasive use of
closures in JavaScript, and though I'd check out Clojure.
So far so good. It installed easily and the REPL is easy to use. I've
watched the screencasts and have writt
18 matches
Mail list logo
