4 ms·
My argument is why not making it look like: (comp (transducer map inc) (transducer filter even?)) Of course, it's more typing and doesn't look as nice as sing
by unlogic 12y ago
My argument is why not making it look like:
(comp (transducer map inc) (transducer filter even?))
Of course, it's more typing and doesn't look as nice as single-arity map, but it goes along quite well with (partial map inc).
I can be wrong but to this date Clojure didn't have a function that produces completely different things based on arity, did it?
- swannodette 12y agoNot sure how what you're suggesting could possibly work unless transducer has a table of fn to transducer - this doesn't sound like a good idea. I recommend looking at the implementations which have landed in Clojure master to see what I'm talking about.
- malisper 12y agoYou could just make them transducer-map, transducer-filter, etc. There is no reason the exact same name should be used for two different things. It is a lot harder to tell the difference between (map inc) and (map inc xs) then it is to tell the difference between (transducer-map inc) and (map inc xs).