I can't really speak to what's more idiomatic, but there is a slight difference between a top-level let and ^:const ^:private. ^:const makes the compiler directly inline the form, thus it works only on pr-dup - able values. This has gotten me by surprise some times. This also duplicates values, that would otherwise be referenced.
OTOH, a let compiles into a static field + regular access, also it's "more private" in the sense that you can't even get it by the (rather obscure) @#'private-var form Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with top-level lets and I like to use them, just to keep compiler writers honest. There had been a clojurescript bug related to this once. Also they are more explicit about scope than the reference tree implicit in namespace vars. -- 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.
