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

[Phillip Lord]

Artur Malabarba <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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?


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.