On Mar 20, 2009, at 14:35, Joshua Fox wrote: > I thought of let as a sort of variable declaration, and so, one > would want to keep it simple and not do complex calculations in the > let binding expressions. > > On the other hand, the sequential mutually-dependent let bindings > are of course legal Clojure and completely immutability-safe. > > If it is considered idomatic, then that's great, as it safely > simulates the sequential building up of values usual to procedural > programs.
Exactly. As I explain in my monad tutorial (http://onclojure.com/ 2009/03/05/a-monad-tutorial-for-clojure-programmers-part-1/), let is just an optimized implementation of the identity monad. As such it looks like the "natural" way to write multi-step computations in which each step depends on the results of the preceding ones. In fact, how would you write such computations otherwise? Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
