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

[Oleh <ohwoeowho@gmail.com>]

>  > How is `dash' better?
>
> It's not in XEmacs core, so I don't have to look at it.

Still, I would not mark it as "Problem solved".  For many people,
Emacs is unusable without third party packages, where solutions to
like `dash' surface to problems that could be better solved in the
core.

> The proposed "short-lambda" is pure sugar and adds zero expressiveness
> to the language.  Furthermore, in Emacsen it would be subject to
> substantial abuse (eg, in hooks where anonymous functions are a bad
> idea).

Of course it's pure sugar. It's short-lambda's sole intention.

But isn't the backquote also pure sugar?  And, believe me, I'm abusing
the hell out of hooks and backquote, just becuase I have the option.
That doesn't mean that anyone would let any of that nonsense through
to the core. And it doesn't mean that adding backquote to the core was
a bad decision.