You could use exceptions, is that a hard requirement or are you working to transition your mental model for Java code to Clojure?
If you can catch the exceptions or not throw them to begin with there’s some other options; Another way you could do it is using core.async and channels as some others have mentioned. Yet another way would be using cats. A similar solution to what the problem you described is outlined partway through this article (there’s a lot there): https://blog.skyliner.io/fourteen-months-with-clojure-beb8b3e4bf00 A friend of mine used to say “get it writ, then get it right”. As long as you encapsulate the desired behaviour in the function you can try all of the different suggestions and take a decision of what feels more readable to you and others on your team. On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 at 23:14, Didier <didi...@gmail.com> 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: > > (let [a (do-a ...) > b (do-b . a . .) > c (do-c . a . b)] > (log/info "Success" {:a a > :b b > :c c}) > c) > > Now, say each steps could possibly throw an exception. So you want to > try/catch the let bindings: > > (try > (let [a (do-a ...) > b (do-b . a . .) > c (do-c . a . b)] > (log/info "Success" {:a a > :b b > :c c}) > c) > (catch Exception e > (log/error "Failed" {:a a > :b b > :c c}) > (throw e))) > > But, inside the catch, you need access to the let bindings a,b,c, in order > to recover from the failure, or like in my example, just to log so that > debugging of the issue is easier. > > Now the catch will not be in scope of the bindings, and this won't even > compile: "Can not find symbol a,b,c in context...". > > What would be the idomatic thing to do here? > > Is there another way to execute a set of complex steps which does not rely > on let and can be try/catched in the manner I describe? > > Or is there a way to re-write the let that satisfies my case, and remains > idiomatic, and does not add accidental complexities? > > Thank You. > > -- > 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. > -- - sent from my mobile -- 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.
