Rich Hickey writes:
[...]
How about #_ ?
>>>
>>> I would prefer #-, but if you think you might want to have a reader
>>> conditional system similar to CL in the future, #_ is fine as well.
>>>
>>> Actually, any character is better than plucking out multi-line
>>> forms and
>>> commenting t
On Feb 22, 2009, at 4:41 AM, Jan Rychter wrote:
>
> Following up on my own post:
>
> Jan Rychter writes:
>> Rich Hickey writes:
>>> On Jan 26, 11:15 am, Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Rich Hickey
wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:10 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
Following up on my own post:
Jan Rychter writes:
> Rich Hickey writes:
>> On Jan 26, 11:15 am, Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Jan 25, 4:10 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
>>> > > #- makes sense (CL didn't always make things the wrong way
Rich Hickey writes:
> On Jan 26, 11:15 am, Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 25, 4:10 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
>> > > #- makes sense (CL didn't always make things the wrong way :-)
>>
>> > > And indeed, #; *could* break a lot of alrea
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 26, 11:15 am, Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Rich Hickey
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 25, 4:10 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> > > > #- makes sense (CL didn't always make things the wrong way :-)
> >
> >
Rich Hickey wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 25, 4:10 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
>> #- makes sense (CL didn't always make things the wrong way :-)
>>
>> And indeed, #; *could* break a lot of already existing editors for a while
>>
>
> Yes, the issues are:
>
> #; is bad for editors
>
> #- would be incompati
On Jan 26, 11:15 am, Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 4:10 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> > > #- makes sense (CL didn't always make things the wrong way :-)
>
> > > And indeed, #; *could* break a lot of already existing editors for a
>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 25, 4:10 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> > #- makes sense (CL didn't always make things the wrong way :-)
> >
> > And indeed, #; *could* break a lot of already existing editors for a
> while
> >
>
> Yes, the issues are:
>
> #; is bad
On Jan 25, 4:10 pm, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> #- makes sense (CL didn't always make things the wrong way :-)
>
> And indeed, #; *could* break a lot of already existing editors for a while
>
Yes, the issues are:
#; is bad for editors
#- would be incompatible with CL's #-, and couldn't be upgrade
#- makes sense (CL didn't always make things the wrong way :-)
And indeed, #; *could* break a lot of already existing editors for a while
--
Laurent
2009/1/25 Jan Rychter
>
> Mark Volkmann writes:
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rich Hickey
> wrote:
> >> On Jan 25, 1:43 pm, Jan Rychter
Mark Volkmann writes:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 1:43 pm, Jan Rychter wrote:
>>> Meikel Brandmeyer writes:
>>> > Am 25.01.2009 um 17:11 schrieb Zak Wilson:
>>>
>>> >> Clojure has that in the comment form: (comment (do (not (eval this
>>>
>>> > No. T
Mark Volkmann writes:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 1:43 pm, Jan Rychter wrote:
>>> Meikel Brandmeyer writes:
>>> > Am 25.01.2009 um 17:11 schrieb Zak Wilson:
>>>
>>> >> Clojure has that in the comment form: (comment (do (not (eval this
>>>
>>> > No. T
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 1:43 pm, Jan Rychter wrote:
>> Meikel Brandmeyer writes:
>> > Am 25.01.2009 um 17:11 schrieb Zak Wilson:
>>
>> >> Clojure has that in the comment form: (comment (do (not (eval this
>>
>> > No. That's not equivalent. comment
On Jan 25, 1:43 pm, Jan Rychter wrote:
> Meikel Brandmeyer writes:
> > Am 25.01.2009 um 17:11 schrieb Zak Wilson:
>
> >> Clojure has that in the comment form: (comment (do (not (eval this
>
> > No. That's not equivalent. comment leaves a nil behind, while #*
> > would not.
>
> > [:a (comme
Meikel Brandmeyer writes:
> Am 25.01.2009 um 17:11 schrieb Zak Wilson:
>
>> Clojure has that in the comment form: (comment (do (not (eval this
>
> No. That's not equivalent. comment leaves a nil behind, while #*
> would not.
>
> [:a (comment :b) :c] => [:a nil :c]
> [:a #* :b :c] => [:a :c]
Hi,
Am 25.01.2009 um 17:11 schrieb Zak Wilson:
Clojure has that in the comment form: (comment (do (not (eval this
No. That's not equivalent. comment leaves a nil behind, while #*
would not.
[:a (comment :b) :c] => [:a nil :c]
[:a #* :b :c] => [:a :c]
Sincerely
Meikel
smime.p7s
Descri
Clojure has that in the comment form: (comment (do (not (eval this
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
To unsubscribe from
I couldn't find anything in Clojure that would correspond to Common
Lisp's reader conditionals, in particular the extremely useful #-(and)
idiom.
I would like to suggest the inclusion of a reader macro: #* or something
of the kind, that would simply ignore the form right after it. That
would allo
18 matches
Mail list logo
