I just realized it after I posted, but thanks for the help anyways.
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 15:27:28 UTC-4, Jim foo.bar wrote:
>
> On 06/06/13 20:23, JvJ wrote:
> > Is there a shorter form of [&{:keys [] :as m}]?
>
> if you don't care about the actual keys just do this:
>
> [& {:as m}]
>
> HT
On 06/06/13 20:23, JvJ wrote:
Is there a shorter form of [&{:keys [] :as m}]?
if you don't care about the actual keys just do this:
[& {:as m}]
HTH,
Jim
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to cl
[& {:as m}]
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:23 AM, JvJ wrote:
> Consider the following:
>
> (let [ [&{:keys [] :as m}] [:a 1 :b 2 :c 3]]
> m)
>
> ==> {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3}
>
> Is there a shorter form of [&{:keys [] :as m}]?
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo
Well... I'm a dingus.
[&{:as m}]
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 15:23:22 UTC-4, JvJ wrote:
>
> Consider the following:
>
> (let [ [&{:keys [] :as m}] [:a 1 :b 2 :c 3]]
> m)
>
> ==> {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3}
>
> Is there a shorter form of [&{:keys [] :as m}]?
>
--
--
You received this message because yo
Consider the following:
(let [ [&{:keys [] :as m}] [:a 1 :b 2 :c 3]]
m)
==> {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3}
Is there a shorter form of [&{:keys [] :as m}]?
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@goog
