"Joy of Clojure" adds a second reason for this:
"The second reason is because it allows us to conjure up other
destructuring features by using forms that would otherwise make no sense.
Because the item on the left of each pair will be a new local name, it must
be a symbol or possibly a nested dest
I'm with Alex. I think of it as though it's a let binding, cause
that's basically what's happening; the is bound to the scoped name.
On Jan 4, 11:29 am, Alex Miller wrote:
> I had the same thought when I first started learning Clojure - I think
> the idea is that there is some nice mental resonan
I had the same thought when I first started learning Clojure - I think
the idea is that there is some nice mental resonance when
destructuring matches up to your mental model of the data structure
(it's literal form). In sequential destructuring, that holds but in
maps it doesn't so things look "b
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 07:36, Johnny Weng Luu wrote:
> One thing that seems weird is the way Clojure destructures a map
>
> I have this map: {:last-name "Vinge" :first-name "Vernor"} which is passed
> to this function: (defn greet-author-2 [{fname :first-name}] ... )
>
> Wouldn't it be better doin
That does feel a bit more natural, but how would you handle :keys, :as, and :or?
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Johnny Weng Luu
wrote:
> One thing that seems weird is the way Clojure destructures a map
>
> I have this map: {:last-name "Vinge" :first-name "Vernor"} which is passed
> to this funct
One thing that seems weird is the way Clojure destructures a map
I have this map: {:last-name "Vinge" :first-name "Vernor"} which is passed
to this function: (defn greet-author-2 [{fname :first-name}] ... )
Wouldn't it be better doing: (defn greet-author-2 [{:first-name fname}] ...
)
You first
