Hacker News
new
|
past
|
comments
|
ask
|
show
|
jobs
|
submit
login
jimbokun
on June 22, 2009
|
parent
|
context
|
favorite
| on:
Critiquing Clojure
I also think that reading lots of "funcall"s makes the intent of the code less readily apparent.
utx00
on June 22, 2009
[–]
it is definitely more verbose and uglier. but in practice it does not seem to be a problem. for instance, comparing to arc, if you had notfn for ~, and testify, you could write all as:
(defun all (test seq) (funcall (notfn #'some) (complement (testify test)) seq))
doesn't seem that bad.
Guidelines
|
FAQ
|
Lists
|
API
|
Security
|
Legal
|
Apply to YC
|
Contact
Search: