2 ms·
i'll just repeat what i've said before - lisp purism is not a valid reason to not adopt data literals for useful data structures. there is nothing inherently wo
by keymone 10y ago
i'll just repeat what i've said before - lisp purism is not a valid reason to not adopt data literals for useful data structures. there is nothing inherently worse about [1 2 3] over (vector 1 2 3) in terms of "the lisp idea", but it is order of magnitude easier to work with in terms of ability to scan structure of code.
- kazinator 10y agoThere is nothing wrong with shorthand notations which don't disturb the surrounding Lisp syntax (don't introduce strange ambiguities and precedence issues into it and so on: and there is room to even do that a little bit). Lisp has those short-hand notations. There is nothing worse about 'X over (quote X). The only thing wrong with [1 2 3] -> (vector 1 2 3) is that it's somewhat of an unimaginative waste of these [ ] characters.
- keymone 10y agoi will waste them as i think fit, thank you very much.