On May 16, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Aaron Cohen wrote: > Saying something is obvious and then using the word monad a paragraph later > is contradictory. ;)
If the word "monad" is scary, just pretend he said "it should short-circuit" instead. ;) > What should happen on the else branch of the if-let; which bindings are in > scope and what would be their values? That's an interesting question. For consistency with the current behavior of single-binding if-let, the binding whose value was false should be left unbound (as well as successive bindings, given short-circuiting); but I could see going either way for the bindings that succeeded. I don't think it matters as much that this behavior would be non-obvious, though, because I'd predict the common case in the else-branch of a multi-binding if-let would be to not care about any of the bindings. That's just my guess, though. -- 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
