I'm with Alex. I think of it as though it's a let binding, cause
that's basically what's happening; the is bound to the scoped name.
On Jan 4, 11:29 am, Alex Miller <a...@puredanger.com> wrote:
> I had the same thought when I first started learning Clojure - I think
> the idea is that there is some nice mental resonance when
> destructuring matches up to your mental model of the data structure
> (it's literal form). In sequential destructuring, that holds but in
> maps it doesn't so things look "backwards". I think the way I've come
> to understand it is that when doing a let-style binding, the thing
> being bound is always "on the left" so when destructuring a map, you
> specify the variable, then the key which is looked up to provide the
> value.
>
> On Jan 4, 12:36 am, Johnny Weng Luu <johnny.weng....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > One thing that seems weird is the way Clojure destructures a map
>
> > I have this map: {:last-name "Vinge" :first-name "Vernor"} which is passed
> > to this function: (defn greet-author-2 [{fname :first-name}] ... )
>
> > Wouldn't it be better doing: (defn greet-author-2 [{:first-name fname}] ...
> > )
>
> > You first type the keyword, then followed by the parameter to bind to. It
> > reads that the value is bound to the parameter in the same place.
>
> > Feels more natural to me in a way.
>
> > Thoughts?
--
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
