Hi all,
Disclaimer: absolute beginner here, so probably missing something very
obvious.
I'm just wondering why certain forms, like let, natively allow for
multiple body/expression argument forms. That is, let seems to
natively allow for side effects.
Wouldn't it make sense to limit let to a
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Peter T ptaoussa...@gmail.com wrote:
Am just curious what the rationale is behind the implicit do.
ja, personally i find the implicit do's in Clojure or begin's in
Schemes to be kinda bad, sort of along the lines of what you say. i
feel like there's all this
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Peter T ptaoussa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Wouldn't it make sense to limit let to a single body/expression
argument, and otherwise require the explicit use of do?
I realize that'd be rather verbose, but it'd seem to also help make
the presence of side
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Raoul Duke rao...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Peter T ptaoussa...@gmail.com wrote:
Am just curious what the rationale is behind the implicit do.
ja, personally i find the implicit do's in Clojure or begin's in
Schemes to be kinda bad,
I think pretty well covered here: http://clojure.org/special_forms.
thanks, i'll re-re-read :)
--
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
On Feb 22, 8:51 pm, Peter T ptaoussa...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just wondering why certain forms, like let, natively allow for
multiple body/expression argument forms. That is, let seems to
natively allow for side effects.
Well, firstly, limiting the body of let to one expression doesn't
prevent
