From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Leo Liu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:54:47 +0800 Message-ID: References: <54C05269.7050602@dancol.org> <87oaprfa3t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <54C0C514.8020606@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421974510 25123 80.91.229.3 (23 Jan 2015 00:55:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:55:10 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 23 01:55:06 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 1YESWe-0005QQ-Ry for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 01:55:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56672 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YESWe-0000VY-Bt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:55:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43712) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YESWa-0000UK-Sx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YESWW-0003Qw-Qt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:55:00 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:39208) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YESWW-0003Qm-K0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:54:56 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YESWT-0005HM-UA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 01:54:54 +0100 Original-Received: from 128.199.230.246 ([128.199.230.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 01:54:53 +0100 Original-Received: from sdl.web by 128.199.230.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 01:54:53 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 16 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.199.230.246 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAACgAAAAoBAMAAAB+0KVeAAAAG1BMVEUAAAA9Cgm3Hx1WWFWA gn+WmJWsrqv4+vcCAwCRl2MkAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAAAFiS0dEAIgFHUgAAAAJcEhZcwAAAYoA AAGKATOXMFgAAAAHdElNRQfXAQwDNR+ZJmElAAABIklEQVQoz22SPW+DQAyGWUq65qasd9PNUSX4 AZHK2C1rJy5jpDS4IwRVup9dn7GNafpKIPPgzztXFSujqq1eM2n8h22oMkvxI/i9C97kRfMRUN55 dS3BrsAwBXUtMLAO4lryh8kTjOxKpQNniNxAgZOEe4bZwsDTFhKdqZRLNII4OQNHhEuq/RMkm6Cj TnnEA/fk0BorcYn5qA3oaeAxbaBOLrX+9G48NZ2Fzc2tzDM8Q+tMypEOqYHh8mAWaaK3U/cDMOT5 aMZMABgPXc7zPMs1A8DXO756GFJ/4fMEq47hTsAdn5avoxZ4ywl0c2w4Flu2Ybeyb3S+EqxX2DYA H8veJGEDTnHnrXvRaPyt+2kSfK6rfBZ2tUtfP/mR+pR6sX8BUZ/cDV7tvkoAAAAASUVORK5CYII= User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (OS X 10.10.1) Cancel-Lock: sha1:7EFQ/vbJfMVp7WP1KgPEvQib85Q= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:181642 Archived-At: On 2015-01-22 17:38 +0800, Daniel Colascione wrote: > With idiomatic elisp, it's > > (mapcar (lambda (x) (* x x)) '(1 2 3)) > > Both alternatives above are more esoteric than the lambda form and are > approximately as wrong. Note how the "lambda" is a prominent "I AM A > FUNCTION" signal. I don't like the shorter forms, won't use them in my > code, and wouldn't rely on calling packages. I don't want to change the > Emacs reader to support this syntax. I must agree with this point. Code is written often once and read many many times for many decades in emacs. Clojure's syntax is noisier than most lisps we love. Leo