Evan Gamble <solar.f...@gmail.com> writes: > I find let? useful and readable, as do others. There's a bit of brain- > training necessary to read it, but not a lot. Probably no more than > the keyword clauses of the "for" comprehension. The argument that > decades of Lisp programmers haven't invented this particular > "chucklehead" macro is a bit weak, since there have been many other > similar macros.
Sure, you feel your defmacro, oats you write some ghetto macros with syntactically significant keywords, maybe stay up late a few nights expanding it into a some monstrosity and suddenly you have loop (I don't think CL's format is in the same realm actually). It works for you, you dig it, mazel tov. God knows I've written worse by far. > ...and I have learned to love nil, even the :else nil clause that > repels you. The idea of and explicit :else nil, in a situation where the negation of the logical operation is implicitely nil, just stinks in my nose. Seriously though, don't let my aesthetic griping stop you from rocking out whatever kinda clojure code tickles your brain. -- Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> Premature reification is the root of all evil -- 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
