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

[Leo Liu]

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