5 ms·
Well, OK then. Rereading your post hasn't made it clearer.
by reitzensteinm 5y ago
Well, OK then. Rereading your post hasn't made it clearer.
- bjoli 5y agoI never claimed clojure couldn't do destructuring. That should be pretty clear. My complaint is that it isn't extensible without resulting to syntax that is very unlispy. My complaint is the de-parenification of let. Why this form? It is easier to type, maybe, but visually it removes the distinction between binding, and makes any future extensions (like if clojure would gain multiple value support - however unlikely) impossible. The strength of it is clearly visible SRFI-71 for scheme. Regular old let was trivially extensible to handle multiple values. And I trivially extended that to have pattern matching, without breaking any backwards compatibility.
- reitzensteinm 5y agoI don't think it's just the syntax that's a roadblock - Clojure is not intended to be extensible in that way. For better or worse, it has batteries included and is highly opinionated. From that perspective, including parens in let just to enable some hypothetical extension makes no sense.