On Mar 19, 2009, at 7:53 AM, e wrote:
> > > Can't you already do this with: > (let [[a b c] [1 a 3]] > (prn a b c)) > > > if, indeed you can, that seems to violate the very interesting, > recent discussion Rich initiated that someone recoined as the > Property Design Pattern. So, on one hand, having let process args > lazily is consistent with the spirit of the language, but on the > other hand dealing with two arrays where orders have to line up > isn't. Since maps are prefered over pairs of vectors, seems like > the map notation is "better"? > A more fundamental question than how best to do it is - who needs this? Does someone have a real need for parallel let? Theoretical arguments about it being clearer (can't have dependencies) aside, after all most let binding lists are short and certainly local, where's a compelling use case for more syntax here? So far it seems like sequential let has proven a useful default, and I'd rather have one let than two. SML has only sequential let. Rich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
