Our son slept like a Baby, too, but I guess we mean different things by that 😅

Haha, I wonder who minted this expression!

I didn't see that one coming. 😂

I didn't, I was all hyped up from our presentation ...

I was too! I wound down by having a Huddle-chat with a friend from Texas that I've met on this slack.

Reminded me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv3MFUnSC6A

It's part of my hidden agenda to get more of the infra/ops folks into clojure and vice versa too 😉

“The sound of one hand clapping”

It's trivial to implement. That's the power of Clojure.

(defn print-> [& args]
  (apply print args)
  args)

Yeah, I know! Exactly why I don’t understand why the built in fns don’t do it. Take swap! for example. It is also side-effectful, so it might as well also return nil. You can just deref your atom afterwards. Could that be any more trivial? Yet swap! returns the current value. Which I appreciate; I often want to use it immediately. Here’s prn

(defn prn
  "Same as pr followed by (newline). Observes *flush-on-newline*"
  {:added "1.0"
   :static true}
  [& more]
    (apply pr more)
    (newline)
    (when *flush-on-newline*
      (flush)))

(defn prn
  "Same as pr followed by (newline). Observes *flush-on-newline*"
  {:added "1.0"
   :static true}
  [& more]
    (apply pr more)
    (newline)
    (when *flush-on-newline*
      (flush))
    more)

Could it be any more trivial? chandler-face

I really don't see a problem. If you want them to return values — make your implementations and use them :) For me personally the current way is fine. For example in cases like this:

(if foo foo (println "No foo"))

I mean, I could implement my own language if I were dissatisfied enough 🙂 It just seems that some fns in Clojure core returns the input, and some don’t, and there’s no good reason (imo) for the discrepancy. I don’t understand your reasoning. The result of swap! is a sideffect and a truthy result. The result of prn is a sideeffect and a falsy result.

Ok

Clojure is great, btw, this is just a very minor annoyance. And there are many examples of design choices where Rich has been very conservative, which I think I get. There’s a point in making the core concise, and not everything and the kitchen sink. And some things are the way they are because of e.g. performance optimizations, I get it. In this case, it seems that it might as well have returned more - it doesn’t hurt performance (I think?), and it’s congruent with e.g. swap.

I completely disagree, but I'm done arguing. I don't see this as an annoyance, even a minor one. It would be strange for print to return a value.

I’ll agree to disagree

🍻 🙂

I’ve actually waited for this. So I guess we need an util/tap->

doto feels perfect to me - and using it invites you to use it more often in other situations

just need a doto-last for those ->>’s