I'm glad my little library has gotten some attention on better-cond, which
even I'm switching over to.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:39 PM Mark Engelberg
wrote:
> Documentation for latest features in the 2.0.1 branch:
> https://github.com/Engelberg/better-cond/tree/v2.0.1
>
> An example:
>
> (cond
Documentation for latest features in the 2.0.1 branch:
https://github.com/Engelberg/better-cond/tree/v2.0.1
An example:
(cond
(odd? a) 1
:let [a (quot a 2)]
:when-let [x (fn-which-may-return-nil a),
y (fn-which-may-return-nil (* 2 a))]
:when (seq x)
:do (println x)
How would the :when and :do forms work?
Alan
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:22 PM Mark Engelberg
wrote:
> This looks like a case of "convergent evolution".
>
> Having the ability to do a :let in the middle of a cond feels like one of
> those things that *should* be in the core language, so if it's not
Yes, I wouldn't have bothered if I had known about better-cond, so there
you go. I think I first wrote this code at Aviso at least five years ago.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:22 PM Mark Engelberg
wrote:
> This looks like a case of "convergent evolution".
>
> Having the ability to do a :let in the
The short-circuiting is a 'feature' of letting the type control the
sequencing of operations. In practice you mix multiple interacting monads
depending on what your requirements are, for example I regularly work with
Deferred Options and Deferred Results. In clojure, you could try to add a
'if-le
But a Maybe/Nothing will short-circuit the whole flow where cond-let won't?
On Thursday, 4 October 2018 08:38:05 UTC-7, Moe Aboulkheir wrote:
>
> See https://funcool.github.io/cats/latest/#mlet for something closer to
> home, in the monadic vein.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:10 PM Gary Trakhm
See https://funcool.github.io/cats/latest/#mlet for something closer to
home, in the monadic vein.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:10 PM Gary Trakhman
wrote:
> These are all just sugar over monadic bind, right?
>
> Here's one way to do it in the ocaml alternate universe:
> https://github.com/janestree
These are all just sugar over monadic bind, right?
Here's one way to do it in the ocaml alternate universe:
https://github.com/janestreet/ppx_let#syntactic-forms-and-actual-rewriting
But it can be made to work for async or options or whatever, too.
We can put the async helpers in the same bucket
This looks like a case of "convergent evolution".
Having the ability to do a :let in the middle of a cond feels like one of
those things that *should* be in the core language, so if it's not in
there, a bunch of people are naturally going to arrive at the same solution
and make it happen in their
Is this a refinement of Mark Engelberg's "better-cond", or an alternative
approach?
I have not used better-cond myself, but it starts here:
https://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-200.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to
A micro library of a single macro, cond-let.
cond-let acts like a cond, but adds :let terms that are followed by a
binding form (like let).
This allows conditional code to introduce new local symbols; the result is
clearer, more linear code, that doesn't make a march for the right margin.
Exampl
11 matches
Mail list logo
