On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Walter Tetzner
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:41:58 PM UTC-4, Dan Cross wrote:
>> My own personal opinion is that it makes sense in combination with 'and',
>> but others may feel differently. E.g.,
>>
>> (when-let [a (allocate-thing) b (read-into-thing a) c
>> (extract-something-from-thing b)]
>> (do-something-with c))
>>
>> makes intuitive sense to me. If, at any stage of the execution, any of a,
>> b or c was nil, the evaluation would stop and the (when-let) form would
>> return nil.
>
> So judging by both your response and my response, it should behave like the
> maybe monad.
Yes, that's a very good characterization.
- Dan C.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
