Further, Clojure's slurp has an optional encoding argument. (I'm glancing at its sourcecode, in the same emacs buffer that I'm typing this post in.)
If I understand your argument, slurp's too unlispy to include in the language. But at least in the CL world, the user is constantly adding to Lisp as she codes away. And there are many things in the CL spec which often considered unlispy. (Take loop and format. Loop is even criticized for being not well-defined, as well as being incomplete in ways you wouldn't expect, as you start pushing its limits. Though I should mention that I love both loop and format.)
What you wrote was beautiful and more complete (I'm not being sarcastic; it looks like the High CL style, which I consider very aesthetic and good, though that's not the only aesthetic style I appreciate), but I think you're comparing a Clojure feature with something which exists mostly as a CL snippet passed around informally. (And is maybe now in some opensource library.)
Further, Clojure's slurp has an optional encoding argument. (I'm glancing at its sourcecode, in the same emacs buffer that I'm typing this post in.)
If I understand your argument, slurp's too unlispy to include in the language. But at least in the CL world, the user is constantly adding to Lisp as she codes away. And there are many things in the CL spec which often considered unlispy. (Take loop and format. Loop is even criticized for being not well-defined, as well as being incomplete in ways you wouldn't expect, as you start pushing its limits. Though I should mention that I love both loop and format.)
What you wrote was beautiful and more complete (I'm not being sarcastic; it looks like the High CL style, which I consider very aesthetic and good, though that's not the only aesthetic style I appreciate), but I think you're comparing a Clojure feature with something which exists mostly as a CL snippet passed around informally. (And is maybe now in some opensource library.)