On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Evan Gamble <solar.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That would work for replacing a single cond surrounded by a single > let, but I often find myself writing a series of nested lets, when- > lets, if-lets, etc. to handle the exceptional cases in lets. A > contrived example: > > (when-let [a foo] > (let [b bar] > (when (even? b) > (let [c baz] > (when (> b c) > (let [d qux] > (f a b c d))))))) > > becomes: > > (let? [a foo :else nil > b bar :is even? > c baz :when (> b c) > d qux] > (f a b c d)) > > Right, I do run across this sort of nesting on a regular basis, and that's the kind of thing that that bothers me. With the cond macro, it would look like: (cond :when-let [a foo] :let [b bar] :when (even? b) :let [c baz] :when (> b z) :let [d gux] (f a b c d)) The cond is more faithful to the original structure and possibly more versatile, but yours is nicely compact for the common case that the interleaved statements are basically assertions on a given variable you want to ensure before moving on. I'm definitely going to give your let? a try and compare it. Thanks! -- 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
