I didn't realize you could bind to empty identifiers like that. Alright, that makes more sense. I figured I was missing something.
On Thursday, 18 October 2012 12:11:49 UTC-4, David Nolen wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:01 PM, JvJ <kfjwh...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote: > >> I'm not sure if anyone's done this before, but I'm fed up with writing >> code that looks like this: >> > > What problem does this solve given you can do the following? > > (let [a 1 > _ (println a) > b 2 > _ (println b) > c 3 > _ (println c)] > ...) > -- 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
