On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Aaron Cohen wrote:
> For one previous discussion of this same topic:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/iyyNyWs53dc/13dWIhwTKzoJ
Very helpful. Rich's explanation helps clarify something that hasn't
(yet) sunk in for me: the difference between "collection" a
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Nick Zbinden wrote:
> I'm writing this here because of two reasons:
> 1. The universial threading operator keeps showing up. Im not saying
> its a always a bad thing but I think we should trie to avoid it in
> most cases and the standard on the parameter order wou
Hi,
another one which caught me recently is nthnext. I expected (nthnext 5
some-seq), but Clojure complained about 5 being not a sequence. :]
Sincerely
Meikel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to cloj
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Nick Zbinden wrote:
>> Stu said:
>> Objects should be the first parameter to a function (like it would be
>> in traditional OO).
>> Collections sould be in the last place in th parameter list.
>>
>> This is b
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Nick Zbinden wrote:
> Stu said:
> Objects should be the first parameter to a function (like it would be
> in traditional OO).
> Collections sould be in the last place in th parameter list.
>
> This is because it makes the use of the threading operater easy -> for
>
Hallo all,
I just watched the talk Radical Simplicity (bit.ly/lsub9h) by Stuart
Halloway. Very Intressting but one little thing he says I wanted to
threw in the groupe because its kind of a half know thing and it
should really move into the Clojure Coding Standard.
Stu said:
Objects should be th
