There's nothing special going on, no "empty" identifiers. It's just a common convention to use _ when uninterested in the return value.
(let [_ 1] _) ;=> 1 Pretty evil to actually use bindings called _ though :) Thanks, Ambrose On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:23 AM, JvJ <kfjwhee...@gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't realize you could bind to empty identifiers like that. Alright, > that makes more sense. I figured I was missing something. > > On Thursday, 18 October 2012 12:11:49 UTC-4, David Nolen wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:01 PM, JvJ <kfjwh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure if anyone's done this before, but I'm fed up with writing >>> code that looks like this: >>> >> >> What problem does this solve given you can do the following? >> >> (let [a 1 >> _ (println a) >> b 2 >> _ (println b) >> c 3 >> _ (println c)] >> ...) >> > -- > 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 > -- 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
