Thanks for the comments. Regarding the bindings, I'd point out that if-let and when-let already work this way (enforcing one binding) and so it isn't introducing any inconsistency.
On 15 November 2012 23:34, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Alex. > > My two cents is that your syntax is more the way I'd expect it to look, > starting off like an actual let with support for destructuring, followed by > the forms. > > Only advantage I can think of for the one in core is that it enforces that > you only have one binding. Basing let-> off of let notation might cause > people to think you could bind multiple vars to values in the initial > bracketed part; that would be somewhat nonsensical. > > -- > 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 > -- *Alex Nixon* Software Engineer | SwiftKey *a...@swiftkey.net** | http://www.swiftkey.net/* ++++++ WINNER - MOST INNOVATIVE MOBILE APP<http://www.swiftkey.net/swiftkey-wins-most-innovative-app-at-mwc> - GSMA GLOBAL MOBILE AWARDS 2012 Head office: 91-95 Southwark Bridge Road, London, SE1 0AX TouchType is a limited company registered in England and Wales, number 06671487. Registered office: 91-95 Southwark Bridge Road, London, SE1 0AX -- 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
