On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:53 AM, Laurent PETIT wrote:
2010/3/24 Konrad Hinsen :
The original version (. object method) still could have an interest
where IDEs could guess the method names to propose based on what they
could infer from the object arg.
With the (.methodName object) version, the IDE us
2010/3/24 Konrad Hinsen :
> On 23 Mar 2010, at 21:04, Robert Lally wrote:
>
>> Is there a technical reason that one should prefer the (.method object)
>> syntax over the (. object method) variant or is it purely a style that the
>> community has converged on?
>
> It's purely style. You can easily v
On 23 Mar 2010, at 21:04, Robert Lally wrote:
Is there a technical reason that one should prefer the (.method
object) syntax over the (. object method) variant or is it purely a
style that the community has converged on?
It's purely style. You can easily verify that (.method object) is
tr
On 23 March 2010 20:57, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 08:04:34PM +, Robert Lally wrote:
>
> > I ask because I found that every time I wanted to change my code from
> > (.method1 object) to (.. object method1 method2) it would have been
> easier
> > if the code wer
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 08:04:34PM +, Robert Lally wrote:
> I ask because I found that every time I wanted to change my code from
> (.method1 object) to (.. object method1 method2) it would have been easier
> if the code were (. object method1) moving to (.. object method1 method2)
> and,
On 23 March 2010 20:16, ataggart wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 23, 1:04 pm, Robert Lally wrote:
> > On 23 March 2010 12:31, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> >
> > > one difference which shows up everywhere, is the method and
> > > constructor notation. While in the book the old is used - (. obj
>
On Mar 23, 1:04 pm, Robert Lally wrote:
> On 23 March 2010 12:31, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > one difference which shows up everywhere, is the method and
> > constructor notation. While in the book the old is used - (. obj
> > (method args ...)) - one should stick to the new one -
On 23 March 2010 12:31, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> one difference which shows up everywhere, is the method and
> constructor notation. While in the book the old is used - (. obj
> (method args ...)) - one should stick to the new one - (.method obj
> args ...). Similar for Contructors. (no
Hi,
On Mar 23, 2:18 pm, Stuart Halloway wrote:
> I am pretty sure the book uses the idiomatic Java interop forms except
> where specifically demonstrating the other forms exist. If that is not
> true it is an erratum, please let me know.
Uh. Sorry. I was told in the book the old form was us
I am pretty sure the book uses the idiomatic Java interop forms except
where specifically demonstrating the other forms exist. If that is not
true it is an erratum, please let me know.
Stu
Hi,
one difference which shows up everywhere, is the method and
constructor notation. While in the bo
Hi,
one difference which shows up everywhere, is the method and
constructor notation. While in the book the old is used - (. obj
(method args ...)) - one should stick to the new one - (.method obj
args ...). Similar for Contructors. (note trailing dot) and Static/
methodCalls.
Since I haven't rea
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Kjeldahl Nilsson writes:
> Question: I'm in the very first pages of the 'Programming Clojure'
> book. I understand that the language is still young and evolving, and
> thus a moving target. What's the best way of getting up to speed? Can
> I just go through the book as-is, or s
12 matches
Mail list logo
