Thank you for this clarification! On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:26 PM, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM, 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. >> > > Just to be clear _ has not special meaning beyond convention. I could have > used x but that doesn't convey that we don't care about the return value. > > David > > -- > 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 > -- I may be wrong or incomplete. Please express any corrections / additions, they are encouraged and appreciated. At least one entity is bound to be transformed if you do ;) -- 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
