On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Manuel Paccagnella
wrote:
>> The only advantage that I know of to naming
>> local functions with letfn is that you can put mutually recursive
>> functions in letfn, or, more generally, functions that refer to one
>> another in a circular manner. With plain let, func
On 02/06/2012 07:08 PM, Cedric Greevey wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Manuel Paccagnella
wrote:
For binding both vars and functions, what's preferred? Using only let for
both:
(let [capitals [...]
ask-capital (fn [] ...)
...)
or instead let coupled with letfn?
(let [cap
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Manuel Paccagnella
wrote:
> For binding both vars and functions, what's preferred? Using only let for
> both:
>
> (let [capitals [...]
> ask-capital (fn [] ...)
> ...)
>
> or instead let coupled with letfn?
>
> (let [capitals [...]]
> (letfn [(ask-capit
On 02/03/2012 12:34 AM, Alex Baranosky wrote:
Hi Manuel,
Your second version looks pretty solid:
https://bitbucket.org/manuelp/geo-quiz/src/a75d57d0e5a2/src/geo_quiz/core.clj
You might consider getting rid of the vars for capitals, ask-capital,
and ask-capitals and using a let or letfn instead.
Hi Manuel,
Your second version looks pretty solid:
https://bitbucket.org/manuelp/geo-quiz/src/a75d57d0e5a2/src/geo_quiz/core.clj
You might consider getting rid of the vars for capitals, ask-capital, and
ask-capitals and using a let or letfn instead.
You don't need a do inside of ask-capital.
An
Hi everyone!
I'm a newbie here and to Clojure (I've been studying it for a few
weeks). Lately I've been doing a lot of practice, and when I was
thinking on how to get some feedback on my code I found a blog post[1]
by Jacek Laskowski asking just that. So I jumped in and implemented my
solutio
