On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM, James Reeves wrote:
> Remember that only the last form will be returned. So:
>
> (defn foo [] 1 2 3 4)
>
> `(defn ~start-function-name []
> will always return 4. The same principle applied with your macro. You
> define four forms, but only return the last on
Thanks much. Your approach is much better than mine. I was looking for a
good excuse to use a macro, but I suppose I will postpone that for another
day.
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:03:07 PM UTC-5, James Reeves wrote:
>
> On 10 December 2013 18:24, larry google groups
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
On 10 December 2013 18:24, larry google groups wrote:
>
> > As an aside, this doesn't look like a good use-case for macros
> >. You'd probably be better defining a map with keys for :
> > worker, :channel, etc. Either that or a protocol.
>
> Thank you much for your help. But I thought this is exac
> As an aside, this doesn't look like a good use-case for macros
>. You'd probably be better defining a map with keys for :
> worker, :channel, etc. Either that or a protocol.
Thank you much for your help. But I thought this is exactly what macros
were for? In another language I would end up ju
Remember that only the last form will be returned. So:
(defn foo [] 1 2 3 4)
will always return 4. The same principle applied with your macro. You
define four forms, but only return the last one. Instead, try wrapping all
the forms in a "do" block.
As an aside, this doesn't look like a good
I am working on web software where admins will be using HTML forms to
update data in a MongoDb database. I decided to use Lamina to off-load the
work to the background. There are several operations that need to happen:
updates, deletions, etc, and I thought I'd put each on a different channel.
