[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function liter
From: |
Daniel Colascione |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Jan 2015 01:53:33 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 |
On 01/22/2015 01:49 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> René Kyllingstad <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:17 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> That does not mean that I am convinced we want or need short-lambda.
>>
>> Both C++ and Java have "recently" added a succinct syntax for their
>> equivalents.
>>
>> Given the amount of work it is to add features to either platform,
>> quite a few people
>> deemed it useful there.
>>
>> At least most peoples .emacs will look a bit tidier with a succinct
>> anonymous lambda
>> as an argument to add-hook :)
>
> You are aware that using add-hook with ad-hoc functions is a bad idea
> since it may mean that you add the same functionality several times in
> case the add-hook is executed multiple times?
I occasionally use defun for that:
(add-hook 'some-hook (defun foo () (bar))
This way, no matter how many times we evaluate the form, we install only
one function. It's usually clearer to just define the function out of
line though.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, (continued)
- 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
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Phillip Lord, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, René Kyllingstad, 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, David Kastrup, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal,
Daniel Colascione <=
- 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, Artur Malabarba, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Phillip Lord, 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, Richard Stallman, 2015/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, David Kastrup, 2015/01/23
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Richard Stallman, 2015/01/23
- Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2015/01/24
Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/01/23