On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Mark
Addleman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 2:35 am, Nicolas Oury <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Can this construct handle higher-order functions?
>
> Nope :)
>
> Chouser brought up this point in IRC. It's not even clear what the
> syntax would look like.
I suppose you could provide named-arg-aware high order
functions with their own syntax.
(named-map subtract :from (range 0 30 3) :take (range 10))
But you'd need everything -- filter, reduce, etc...
There is something that can be done to make a normal call
look more ... normal. That is, instead of:
(named-call subtract :from 10 :take 2)
you'd prefer:
(subtract :from 10 :take 2)
Well, that's just a matter of writing a defn-named-args
macro:
(defn-named-args subtract [from take] (- from take))
Which would expand to something like:
(do
(defn subtract-func [from take] (- from take))
(defmacro subtract [& args]
`(named-call subtract-func ~...@args)))
This actually came up in IRC too. :-) Note it builds
directly on the named-call macro you've already got. Also
note that it enforces the inability to use this 'subtract'
in high order functions because it's now a macro.
--Chouser
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
