On 01/22/2015 04:46 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: > Artur Malabarba 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.