On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Handkea fumosa<hfum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > user=> (doall > (for [x (range 2) y (range 2)] > (println x "@" y) > (* x y))) > > Expected: > > 0 @ 0 > 0 @ 1 > 1 @ 0 > 1 @ 1 > (0 0 0 1) > > Got: > > #<CompilerException java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Wrong number > of args passed to: core$for (NO_SOURCE_FILE:220)> > > Wrapping the body in an explicit "do" fixes it, but the need for an > explicit "do" violates the convention for non-conditional binding > forms -- ones like (let [binds] body), and (loop [binds] body), and so > on.
That's true, it is different. But it is different also in yielding a lazy seq. Prior to doseq acquiring similar nested iteration, use of 'for' for side effects, and not getting them, was a frequent problem for people. Now that doseq has similar capabilities, I think the situation you've put forth (side effects and keeping lazy result) will be an extreme minority case, and am inclined to think it would be better to require and see the 'do' so you know something funky is going on. Rich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
