On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:17 PM, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Grant Rettke <gret...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Mark Engelberg
>> <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Either way works well. I think Evan's way results in somewhat more
>> > compact
>> > code for the common case, whereas Cgrand's way feels a little more
>> > versatile
>> > (and his "flatter cond" is what I use). I strongly urge you to pick one
>> > of
>> > these two techniques and include it in your project. Once you try it
>> > and
>> > see how much cleaner the code is, you'll be hooked.
>>
>> Is it poor form to do something like this inside a defn?
>>
>> (def a 1)
>> (println "this is a: " a)
>> (def b 2)
>> (println "this is b: " b)
>> (def c 3)
>> (println "this is c: " c)
>> (println "Sum: " (+ a b c))
>
>
> very poor form. def is always top level.
It is poor form in that it will break things in confusing and horrible
ways or poor form from a style perspective?
When you use def inside a defn is it equivalent to a let binding like this?
(defn foo []
(def a 1)
(println a))
(defn foo []
((fn [a]
(println a)) 1))
--
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
