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

[Oleh <ohwoeowho@gmail.com>]

>>>> 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.

Why so harsh?

Was there a debate when `rx' made it to the Emacs core?  It's an
alternative syntax (which actually I still haven't learned, because,
unlike `short-lambda', `rx' is actually hard to learn) for a string
regex. There's nothing like it in other PLs, unlike the string
regexes, which most of PLs feature.

So how do I deal with `rx' when I encounter one?

    with C-x C-e

So how can you deal with #(* % 2) when you encounter one?

    with C-x C-e: returns "(lambda (%) (* % 2))"