[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function liter
Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:36:39 -0200
Firstly, I'd like to manifest my support for this feature.
Secondly, (even though this patch is obviously not complete, since it
still needs the actual macro) before it's done, don't forget to add a
ChangeLog entry with the commit.
Thirdly, you have a small typo in the commit message: "in[dt]ent".
2015-01-21 20:37 GMT-02:00 Oleh <address@hidden>:
> Thanks for the input,
>> Some parts of short-lambda's documentation is unclear to me. I have no
>> experience with Clojure, so this is all from the perspective of someone new
>> to short-lambda.
>>> 2. In the case when `%1' is the highest-ranking argument, it may be
>>> abbreviated to `%'.
>> When '%1' is the highest-ranking argument, that means '%1' is the only
>> argument, correct? I think this point will be more accessible if we don't
>> rely on the reader knowing or correctly inferring what "highest-ranking"
>> means, and use something along the lines of "when %1 is the only argument"
> Fixed with your suggestion. The point is not to mix % and e.g. %2.
> Clojure allows this, for not particular reason.
>>> 3. The lower-ranking arguments are auto-added, even if they are not
>>> present in FORMS.
>> Auto-added to the list of arguments? Similar to my above point, it will be
>> better if we can remove the dependency on "lower-ranking", and explain what
>> we mean by that term (something like "all arguments with a smaller number
>> than the argument with the largest number are included as part of the
>> lambda's arguments, even if they do not appear in STRUCTURE").
> This means:
> (short-lambda (list %3)) => (lambda (%1 %2 %3) (list %3))
Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Daniel Colascione, 2015/01/21