The indentation is enough of a hint to get it right. For example, in myfn-a, because you've indented it correctly I can easily tell that (dec b) is the second argument to recur, without looking at the parentheses at all. Isolating close-parens would probably help a little with this task, but the loss of screen real estate would far outweigh the gains.
Without the indentation to help, indeed we would be lost in a sea of parens and it might be necessary to put one on each line; but as Phil points out, computers are better at that than we are, so we can leave the parentheses as an "implementation detail" and work on top of the indentation-based abstraction emacs (or whatever IDE) offers us. On Aug 18, 2:09 am, michele <michelemen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wouldn't that make it easier to keep track of them. > > Example: > > (defn myfn-a [a b] > (if (zero? b) > a > (recur > (afn (bfn (...)) a) > (dec b)))) > > (defn myfn-b [a b] > (if (zero? b) > a > (recur > (afn (bfn (...)) a) > (dec b) > ) > ) > ) -- 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
