Why not avoid all the keywords and create let-cond? (let-cond [a x b (* a 4)] (> b x) 1 :else 2)
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:01:33 AM UTC-8, Evan Gamble wrote: > > Another way to flatten nested lets and conds is to use a macro that > lets you insert conditionals in your lets (vs. your suggestion of > inserting lets in conds). > > I wrote a let? macro that does that: https://github.com/egamble/let-else > > - Evan > > On Mar 7, 10:51 pm, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In the meantime, I *strongly urge* everyone to check out Grand's flatter > > cond macro: > https://github.com/cgrand/parsley/blob/master/src/net/cgrand/parsley/... > > > > It lets you insert lets in the middle of cond expressions (like you can > > currently do with for) like: > > (cond > > (pos? x) 2 > > :let [y (* x x)] > > (> y 20) 4)) > > > > This totally transformed my coding style and improved the readability of > my > > code substantially. Highly recommended. Since it is backwards > compatible, > > I very much wish it were part of the core, and see no reason that it > > couldn't be. > > > > --Mark -- 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
