Just to bring this one back to topic; here is another FizzBuzz, this time
no cond/if statement:
(def three (cycle [nil nil fizz]))
(def five (cycle [nil nil nil nil buzz]))
(map vector (range 1 16) three five )
;([1 nil nil] [2 nil nil] [3 fizz nil] ...
Thomas
--
You received this message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am 30.12.12 07:14, schrieb Laurent PETIT:
`when` provides an implicit `do`, so I generally try to only use
it when I want side-effects. (Other side-effecty forms include
`do`, `doseq`, `dotimes` and `when-not`.)
On the other end, using when
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer m...@kotka.de wrote:
(when-let [s (seq coll)]
(do-stuff-with s))
I would find when-let a lot more useful if it worked with multiple
bindings, e.g.,
(when-let [x blah1
y blah2
z blah3]
(+ x y z))
should
If-let would be confusing if it handled multiple bindings, since you wouldn't
know how much had succeeded when you executed the else branch. That doesn't
apply to when-let; fortunately it's quite simple to write one that does do
multiple bindings in terms of the existing when-let, and it would
Hi
I'd change your fizzy function so it returns a string instead of printing
it. This way it will be pure function and more functional-like. In doseq
you'll need (printlng (fuzzy x)) instead of
(fuzzy x).
Nikita Beloglazov
On Saturday, December 29, 2012 3:35:38 PM UTC+3, Sean Chalmers wrote:
Yay! Thanks for the feedback everyone. I originally had it as a 'cond' but
because I was using 'println' directly in my fizzy function I was getting
on 15 for example fizzbuzz, buzz, fizz but changing it to more pure
function would probably deal with that. I'll have a play with 'when' as
well,
On Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:15:49 PM UTC-5, Sean Chalmers wrote:
... but changing it to more pure function would probably deal with that.
Another benefit of pure functions is that they're easier to test.
I'll have a play with 'when' as well, hadn't tried that one yet.
`when`
2012/12/30 John Gabriele jmg3...@gmail.com:
On Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:15:49 PM UTC-5, Sean Chalmers wrote:
... but changing it to more pure function would probably deal with that.
Another benefit of pure functions is that they're easier to test.
I'll have a play with 'when' as
