Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal

[Daniel Colascione]

On 01/22/2015 04:46 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
> Artur Malabarba <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>>> Thanks, but I'd strongly prefer not to baking this syntax into the elisp
>>> reader. IME, we tend not to use anonymous lambas enough to matter.
>>> Clojure is idiomatically pure-functional; we're not.
>>
>> It's not much about how pure-functional the language is, it's about
>> how useful the feature would be.
>> Later on this thread you report over 6800 lambdas in the code. How
>> many would have been enough?
>>
>>> I'd be more receptive to a generalized, CL-style reader-macro facility.
>>> You could then use that to implement this syntax, but locally.
>>
>> I have nothing against implementing this feature, but it would be more
>> complicated to implement and probably end up being less used than the
>> suggested feature. Why not have a shorthand lambda as well?
> 
> 
> The prospect of 30 implementations of shorthand lambdas does not fill be
> with joy either. If there were reader macros then the question as to
> whether to implement short hand lambdas would still come up.

And the people who care for this shorthand syntax can do their
experiments out-of-tree, where they belong. It's unlikely that short
lambda syntax will ever make it into the Emacs core.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature