**EDIT: I've put some (private, mostly pretty small) 'helper'-functions outside the let-block. I like this kind of construct in some way. It makes a clear distinction between:
1. functions that don't use the 'namespace constants', mostly helper functions (very often, most of these can be put in a kind of seperate 'utility' namespace, but not always) 2. functions that do use the 'namespace constants', mostly the public namespace functions (to be called from another namespace) Op dinsdag 25 augustus 2015 14:14:52 UTC+2 schreef Kurt Sys: > > I'm refering to a few posts in an old thread: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/r_ym-h53f1E/RzUdb5oYeX4J > > What really puzzles me is that it doesn't seem to be generally >> regarded as idiomatic Clojure style to just use top-level (let)s for >> your "private" globals. > > > So, here's the question: what's considered best practice in Clojure (what > is idiomatic in Clojure): using private (namespace-scoped) globals > variables or one big let over all (or at least, most) defns in a namespace? > And why :)? > -- 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.
