On Jan 11, 6:19 pm, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This gets to my question perfectly. Why is your code "my-list
> (rest (rest my-list)) " legal?
Because you're not actually changing anything.
In theory, the let form can be derived from anonymous functions. So
(let [x y] ...) is the same as ((fn [x] ...) y).
Or, to give you a more practical example:
(defn f [x]
(let [x (+ x 1)]
(* 2 x)))
Is the same as the following Python code:
def f(x):
def g(x):
return x * 2
return g(x + 1)
We're not changing the value of x, we're just rebinding it within the
scope of the function. The value of x in g is not the same as the
value of x in f.
In practice, let forms are never actually implemented as nested
functions, because that would be far too slow. But in theory, nested
functions are equivalent to let forms.
> seems like:
> [my-list (for [x some-list] [x])]
>
> is simpler to understand than:
> [my-list (vec (map vector some-list))]
It probably is :) - I just haven't had the opportunity to use the for
macro yet.
- 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
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
