Well maybe the problem of the let? macro is that it is not standard. If you use standard constructs and I'am proeficient with clojure I'll understand your code fast. I'll concentrate on understanding your code relevant for your application and domain. But just adding a few new constructs specific to ypur libr can make code really complex to read, even to experimented clojurians.
That the power of macros (or even functions). Abstract things away. But you also need to know the function/macro. And if it is not standard, we end up with many different version of let? depending of the library, author... By all means I'm not against let? macro or On 9 mar, 19:04, Evan Gamble <solar.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > I find let? useful and readable, as do others. There's a bit of brain- > training necessary to read it, but not a lot. Probably no more than > the keyword clauses of the "for" comprehension. The argument that > decades of Lisp programmers haven't invented this particular > "chucklehead" macro is a bit weak, since there have been many other > similar macros. > > ...and I have learned to love nil, even the :else nil clause that > repels you. > > - Evan > > On Mar 9, 9:26 am, Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Evan Gamble <solar.f...@gmail.com> writes: > > > (let? [a foo :else nil > > > b bar :is even? > > > c baz :when (> b c) > > > d qux] > > > (f a b c d)) > > > Macros like that just make your code so much LESS readable. I now have > > to understand the semantics of a bunch of keywords specific to the > > macro, their order of operations within the macro, as well as > > recognizing the little ? on the end of the let as I'm scanning. I also > > have to see if that's a keyword or the start of another binding! > > > :else nil? really? > > > :is ... Geezus christ > > > :when !?!?! Put down that nailgun, kid > > > ;; This maintains the same logic (unless I fucked up transcoding) > > ;; and also the same err, complexity, in that forms are not exeuted if > > ;; they don't need to be, as your initial example, without nesting all > > ;; the way over to the side, or using some weird keyword language. > > > (when-let [a foo] > > (let [b bar > > c (when (even? b) baz)] > > (when (and c (> b c)) > > (f a b c qux)))) > > > ;; or > > > (when-let [a foo] > > (let [b bar > > c (when (even? b) baz) > > d (when (and c (> b c)) qux)] > > (when d (f a b c d)))) > > > Keep your constructs simple, and learn to love the nil. > > > Also, people have been writing lisp for a real long time, and they > > haven't invented a chucklehead macro like let? yet, so prolly not really > > needed to improve the readability... > > > -- > > Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> > > Premature reification is the root of all evil -- 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
