[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function liter
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:03:06 +0900 |
Oleh writes:
> > Footnotes:
> > [1] ISTM that that goes without saying, given that Lisp having data
> > and code representations using the same syntax is advertised as an
> > advantage.
>
> I don't see a problem:
Not everything is a problem. I understand that "#(fubar indeed!)"
is reader syntax and doesn't affect internal representation of the
lambdas. That was a comment to David that (as often happens in his
posts) he is taking the literal meaning of metaphorical or elliptical
expressions too seriously. Metaprogramming is the soul of Lisp, I
know that and he knows that I know that. We disagree so violently
because we disagree so little. ;-)[1]
Re this sprinkling of bitter herbs: I just don't like the syntax (in
general I'm not a fan of anatropic syntax in Lisp), and don't want to
support use of it in the educational sense of support or in core
maintenance in XEmacs. I don't expect to convince you, it's a matter
of taste. My likes and dislikes matter to more than me because I do a
*lot* of support, and the more magic there is in the world the harder
it is to explain to users who believe in magic that under the hood
it's just a lambda. I think this
(car #(fubAr quux)) => 'lambda
would be *very* surprising to most users. That kind of computation is
what functions are for.
Footnotes:
[1] Not funny, actually, but I'm too old to change and respect David
too much to ask him to change. I even kinda like him as he is. :-)
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, (continued)
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Daniel Colascione, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Oleh, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Daniel Colascione, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Oleh, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Ivan Andrus, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Leo Liu, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, David Kastrup, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Oleh, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Oleh, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, David Kastrup, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Oleh, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Tassilo Horn, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Oleh, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Oleh, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Artur Malabarba, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/01/22