From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Oleh Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:44:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <54C05269.7050602@dancol.org> <87oaprfa3t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <877fwfunnz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <873872vq5v.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421937904 3196 80.91.229.3 (22 Jan 2015 14:45:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 22 15:45:03 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YEJ0H-0002HB-BB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:45:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53633 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YEJ0G-0002fI-Sg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:45:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44990) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YEJ0C-0002d1-9U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:44:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YEJ0B-0000PS-F6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:44:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]:50639) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YEJ0B-0000PA-8z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:44:55 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id bs8so44184201wib.5 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 06:44:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ggS3KL5ir1KAbnVm1bPnXVakTn6yCcM1vPnnvbJwmwM=; b=AlPiZ9TaALBQ8VRtGes76jMbFYW9DwinSncN7e3dDGTLnNGIOao1+QXfCfJGzHnmpp pr/4kK0uYc7ucPT9AvWQIdAk6YFmpVeTVIZ0oFD3TWY5Oa3EmqvSsvnDaCbf2N8J88pN ZVqGe1skAU9tfR5/cjSSbhhMEVr3z0iAfAZvOfi9/5aX0TK/g6zh0EuQeYh6HaTdihnF wpPZq2/VxSz5sI9vXNrxA35ljH6l1D92f37xdE2z7prVBqExRCnITT4toO+4Grcya5A8 DKGp0LFflz8soJuxSuTWFlFW7QifUv0Dv1YBADHN2ug7FySnHKFZ/GSNx9EQzM7kgJY8 gdmQ== X-Received: by 10.194.234.2 with SMTP id ua2mr3801490wjc.40.1421937894523; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 06:44:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.27.137.137 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 06:44:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <873872vq5v.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:181606 Archived-At: > > 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.