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

[Artur Malabarba]

> 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?