On Mar 10, 12:19 am, Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> wrote: > Sure, you feel your defmacro, oats you write some ghetto macros with > syntactically significant keywords, maybe stay up late a few nights > expanding it into a some monstrosity and suddenly you have loop (I don't > think CL's format is in the same realm actually). It works for you, you > dig it, mazel tov. God knows I've written worse by far.
let? is designed specifically to allow a series of let bindings with assertions to be combined into a single let form. I won't let it grow into a huge monstrosity, like loop. > > > ...and I have learned to love nil, even the :else nil clause that > > repels you. > > The idea of and explicit :else nil, in a situation where the negation of > the logical operation is implicitely nil, just stinks in my nose. In fact I'm not thrilled with the :else nil syntax, either, but I haven't thought of a simple alternative. Can't use a naked :else without the nil, because parsing would be ambiguous. > > Seriously though, don't let my aesthetic griping stop you from rocking > out whatever kinda clojure code tickles your brain. Rest assured, I won't. -- 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
