On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:28:05 -0800 (PST)
kuniklo <milese...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of my least favorite things about common lisp was the degree of
> nesting it required for sequential variable definitions. For common
> code like this:
>
> (let (a vala)
> (b valb)
> ... do something with a & b...
> (let (c (fn a b))
> (d (fn a b))
> ... do something with a, b, c, d...
> (let (e (fn ...))
> (f (fn ....))
You might want to check out let*.
> etc. You eventually get a very deeply nested function simply because
> the values of variables assigned later in the code depend on values
> determined earlier in the code. From what I can this is also the case
> in clojure, correct?
Nope. Clojure's let is like CL's let*
> In contrast, the python/ruby/java approach (which I realize has its
> own warts).
> a = 1
> b = 2
> c = a * b
> d = a + c
> e = func(d)
In clojure, you'd do:
(let [a 1
b 2
c (* a b)
d (+ a c)
e (func d)]
(calculation using a, b, c, d and e))
> I'm new to clojure so I'm wondering - are there idiomatic ways of
> reducing the degree of scope-nesting let incurs or do people just tend
> to try to avoid that kind of code with smaller sub functions etc?
Anything particularly wrong with the example I gave you?
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
--
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
