On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Constantine Vetoshev
<gepar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2. I tried it with the more let-like form, but I don't like the number
> of opening braces required. For a full kw-spec, the form would end up
> (let-kw [[[:kw default supplied?]] kw-args] ...). Clojure tends to err
> on the side of fewer braces and parentheses, and three opening braces
> looks excessive to me. That said, I see the point of keeping it
> consistent with the other binding forms.
'let' is also careful to always have the user provide the symbol
being bound as a symbol. That is you say {:keys [a b c]} not
{:keys [:a :b :c]}. What do you think of having let-kw take
symbols instead of keywords for the names being bound?
--Chouser
--
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
