On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 6:14:33 PM UTC-4, Didier wrote: > > I'm curious how others handle this use case, which I feel should be pretty > common. > > Given you have a series of business process steps, where the flow is too > complex for the arrow macros, and you also like to name the step results > descriptively, so you use let: >
You are almost saying what I am thinking: this beast of a calculation has to be broken up (into separate functions)! :) > > (let [a (do-a ...) > b (do-b . a . .) > c (do-c . a . b)] > Even in an impure language such as Common Lisp we frown on such LET forms. I believe it was Lisp legend Paul Graham who suggested we imagine a tax on LET. Sometimes while sorting out something complex I do solve it in a series of LET bindings, but once I understand what I am about I am able to add clarity by shuffling the code into a nice functional form (and yes, sometimes break things out into standalone functions if only to make the source more approachable). I then think the exception handling will sort itself on its own. -kt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
