On 4 January 2013 21:45, Anthony Grimes <disciplera...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really? I didn't read the thread, but I wouldn't expect that behavior at > all. How would you know which bindings to use given the short circuiting? > Unless it would bind the short circuited bindings to nil, which also seems > weird. I would absolutely want if-let to use (and ..) on my bindings.
All bindings in "then" clause, no bindings in "else" clause. Inside the bindings vector -- as in a regular let, that is, each init expression sees the bindings established earlier. Note that if-let -- as it currently stands, I mean -- doesn't make the binding available to the "else" branch (so there's no way of telling if the init expression turned out to be false or nil). The above would be a natural extension of that behaviour to many bindings. Cheers, M. -- 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
