Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
1 point by thaddeus 5099 days ago | link | parent

Not sure. I find the #''y hard on the eyes :)

Though it reminds me a little on how clojure handles inline anonymous functions, which I really like:

    #{+ %1 %2} ;% being the args, %1 being the first, %2 the second, and so on
wondering if something similar is possible with case:

(case x #(myfun)(dosomething))

yet still able to:

(case x 'y (dosomething))

note: Sorry if I missed something and am suggesting non-sense stuff, I haven't yet looked into the code details you provided - so I could be out to lunch.



1 point by rocketnia 5099 days ago | link

In case you missed the post I referred to, here it is: http://arclanguage.org/item?id=13240

All the necessary assumptions are listed in the top comment though (assuming you can intuit my intentions for the 'iflet macro, etc.). It's by no means implemented. ^^

Also, I welcome any switch in the heiroglyphics that makes them more readable. In Penknife, where there are infix operators but no read macros, I'd probably represent #''y as "thunk:sym.y" or "sym.y^". In Arc, ^'y looks like a good choice. Maybe :y or %y could be the zapper (or some better-suited abstraction over setforms).

-----

1 point by evanrmurphy 5098 days ago | link

> Maybe :y or %y could be the zapper (or some better-suited abstraction over setforms).

Maybe something with `=` in it?

-----