That would work for replacing a single cond surrounded by a single
let, but I often find myself writing a series of nested lets, when-
lets, if-lets, etc. to handle the exceptional cases in lets. A
contrived example:
(when-let [a foo]
(let [b bar]
(when (even? b)
(let [c baz]
(when (> b c)
(let [d qux]
(f a b c d)))))))
becomes:
(let? [a foo :else nil
b bar :is even?
c baz :when (> b c)
d qux]
(f a b c d))
On Mar 8, 1:24 pm, evandi <evan135...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
