Chouser -
Can you describe definline and how that differs from defmacro? I'm
not sure I understand it from reading the docs.
On Jul 17, 10:06 am, Chouser wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Laurent PETIT
> wrote:
>
> > 2009/7/17 Chouser
>
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Mark
>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Laurent PETIT wrote:
>
> 2009/7/17 Chouser
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Mark
>> Addleman wrote:
>> >
>> > On Jul 17, 2:35 am, Nicolas Oury wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> Can this construct handle higher-order functions?
>> >
>> > Nope :)
>> >
>> > Ch
2009/7/17 Chouser
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Mark
> Addleman wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 17, 2:35 am, Nicolas Oury wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Can this construct handle higher-order functions?
> >
> > Nope :)
> >
> > Chouser brought up this point in IRC. It's not even clear what the
> > s
Hi,
2009/7/17 Mark Addleman
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 11:50 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> > 2009/7/17 Mark Addleman
> >
> >
> >
> > > "The "sufficiently smart compiler" argument
> > > comes to mind: if the arglist of a function is known, then surely
> > > the
> > > compiler should be able to automatic
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Mark
Addleman wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 2:35 am, Nicolas Oury wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Can this construct handle higher-order functions?
>
> Nope :)
>
> Chouser brought up this point in IRC. It's not even clear what the
> syntax would look like.
I suppose you could p
On Jul 17, 2:35 am, Nicolas Oury wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can this construct handle higher-order functions?
Nope :)
Chouser brought up this point in IRC. It's not even clear what the
syntax would look like.
> (I mean a function with named arguments as an argument to another
> function).
> It see
On Jul 16, 11:50 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> 2009/7/17 Mark Addleman
>
>
>
> > "The "sufficiently smart compiler" argument
> > comes to mind: if the arglist of a function is known, then surely
> > the
> > compiler should be able to automatically translate named/keyword
> > arguments into an
Hello,
Can this construct handle higher-order functions?
(I mean a function with named arguments as an argument to another
function).
It seems quite difficult to do a function dependent transformation on
the call site when the function is unknown.
Best regards,
Nicolas.
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 1
2009/7/17 Mark Addleman
>
> "The "sufficiently smart compiler" argument
> comes to mind: if the arglist of a function is known, then surely
> the
> compiler should be able to automatically translate named/keyword
> arguments into an appropriate simple call?"
>
> That is exactly what motivated
Interesting !
BTW, I think you can simplify (eval `^(var ~fn)) into (meta (resolve fn)).
Regards,
--
Laurent
2009/7/17 Mark Addleman
>
> A few days ago, Chouser and I had a discussion on IRC about the
> viability of named arguments (a la Smalltalk) for Clojure. In clojure-
> contrib, there
"The "sufficiently smart compiler" argument
comes to mind: if the arglist of a function is known, then surely
the
compiler should be able to automatically translate named/keyword
arguments into an appropriate simple call?"
That is exactly what motivated me to write this macro. I was pretty
su
> Even if the macro isn't all that valuable, I learned a lot
> about Clojure in the process. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love
> to hear them.
This is definitely interesting to me.
I currently use the keyword arg idiom -- (apply hash-map args) -- but
I'm painfully aware of all the addit
12 matches
Mail list logo
