On 12 February 2015 at 02:06, gvim <gvi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That explains it but I think Clojure's syntax is misleading here. Without > knowledge of this magic the mind doesn't readily translate: > > (let [x 1 > x (inc x) > x (inc x) > x (inc x)] > x) > > .... into: > > (let [x 1] > (let [x (inc x)] > (let [x (inc x)] > (let [x (inc x)] > x)))) >
It's not magic; it's just how the syntax is defined. The for and doseq forms have the same behaviour. Languages like Racket that are perhaps more focused on teaching do have separate let and let* forms. However, Clojure has a more practical focus, and there isn't much practical point in having a non-shadowing let. - James -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
