I think a regular "let" is clearer in this kind of case. "as->" suggests to me that multiple rebindings will happen to the name: if that is not happening then it is confusing for readers IMHO.
The only case I can think of where "as->" makes sense and the binding only happens once is if you are anticipating/suggesting that more rebindings will be inserted later (e.g. you expect additional steps like input transformation or output validation to be added). On Monday, 19 August 2013 22:58:28 UTC+8, Jay Fields wrote: > > In the past, I've written code like the following > > (defn foo [x y] > (let [x-squared (* x x)] > (if (pos? y) > (+ x-squared y) > (- x-squared y)))) > > However, the introduction of as-> has led me to write the following, at > times > > (defn foo [x y] > (as-> (* x x) x-squared > (if (pos? y) > (+ x-squared y) > (- x-squared y)))) > > In essence, I've started replacing single binding lets with as->. John > Hume has pointed out that as-> seems to have been introduced to work > in conjunction with ->. Which brings me to my question - do you think > it's better to use a single binding let from a readability > perspective? Are there any (performance or otherwise) impacts that I > should be aware of? > > Cheers, Jay > -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
