On Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 21:40, Tassilo Horn wrote: > I think instead of `conde' you can use `conda' here, because when the > first clause succeeds the second one cannot succeed and doesn't need to >
Careful with the use of `conde` vs `conda`, as `conda` is an early cut. In other words, if you substituted `conda` in Tassilo’s solution, and you had multiple generations, then `descendants` would only find the first generation of descendants. If you wanted to find *all* descendants, then you need `conde`. -- 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/d/optout.
