<Cross posting from Clojurescript group. Sorry if you got this question
twice>
Hi,
Is it idiomatic to have defn inside defn? eastwood throws def-in-def
warning when I have the following code:
(defn double-square [y]
(defn square [x] (* x x))
(+ (square y) (square y)))
The above code is a simplified example to show the problem. In the above
case, square is a function which is local and I dont want it to be shared
outside the context of double-square.
I can change it to use letfn like below:
(defn double-square [y]
(letfn [(square [x] (* x x))]
(+ (square y) (square y))))
But when you have multiple local functions, it doesnt seem nice to read.
- Uday.
--
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.
