On Nov 7, 9:32 pm, Chouser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And in which case, your vector syntax could be misleading, because it > > seems to imply you're assigning i to 10: > > > (dotimes [i 10] > > (prn i)) > > Vectors are also used for "for": > > (for [i (range 10)] > (* 2 i)) > > Here i is not bound to the seq (range 10) but to each of the numbers > in turn.
I'm still not convinced on this one. Currently, you have single assignments, where a value is assigned to a symbol as in let and binding, and sequence assignments, where each item in the sequence is assigned to a symbol. Adding a vector to dotimes would add a third type, and I don't think it's obvious what the [i 10] does. I mean, you originally put it down as [i (range 10)], so you were thinking in terms of [symbol sequence] too. > > Second, with your patch, is the following valid: > > > (doseq [i (range 10) > > j (range 10)] > > (prn i) > > (prn j)) > > It behaves the same as "for" does, that is with j in an inner loop. > It also supports :while and :when as "for" does. Well, not that my opinion matters ;) - but you've sold me on this one. Consistency with the for macro seems reasonable. > My first inclination is to disallow it -- add a check to make sure > only one binding pair is given. Alternatively it could act as if it > were nested, as "for" (and now "doseq") do, in which case it would act > like an "and", and both x and y would be bound to non-false values. Hm. A nested if would be consistent with the nested for and doseq macros. If this is implemented, nesting ifs would be my preference for this. - 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
