Hacker News Reader

Comment by riffraff | Hacker News Reader

why use

    map (-> it.length > x), list
    map (call \toUpperCase), 'haha'

for functions with only one free variable?

IMHO it would be prettier to have something like scala's _

    map (_.length > x), list
    map (_.toUpperCase), 'haha'

i.e. automatically build a closure when _ is used eithout the need for additional anonymous function syntax

They discussed this, and decided: a) partially-applied operators fills some of the gap, and b) they're far too complicated to implement.

ah, thanks, I missed partially applied operators. But then, it seems easy to do it with single method calls too, e.g.

    map (.length) x

rather than

    map (call \length) x

does not fit more complex usage, but it's a tiny improvement I'd think

This is an interesting idea - I will look into it. It does not seem to conflict with the current syntax. Thanks for the suggestion!

I'm not a big fan of scala's _ operator. I find it a poor decision from a language design perspective for

    _.method(param)

to be a function, but for

    a.method(param)

to not be a function (unless of course method returns a function)

It also doesn't nest properly