Re: let vs. let*

My apologies (sincerely). Won't use that again. -- 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

Re: let vs. let*

Hi, I fear that I have to excuse me for triggering a debate about principles of behavior patterns on this list. Of course, I tried to answer my question myself using Google. Perhaps I made a mistake on the selection of the right search pattern so I didn't find satisfactory results. The lmgtfy

Re: let vs. let*

I had to query it myself not knowing what this site was all about, nice tutorial, I think I understood it :) Luc P. > raould, > > I find lmgtfy links to be a condescending way to answer a question and I > would prefer that we not use them on this list. If you have an answer or a > link to one

Re: let vs. let*

raould, I find lmgtfy links to be a condescending way to answer a question and I would prefer that we not use them on this list. If you have an answer or a link to one, then respond with this, otherwise I do not see a reason to post this. Thanks, Alex On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:35:53 P

Re: let vs. let*

I don't think this is a "let me google that for you" question. Let vs let* in Clojure is not at all the same as the popular usages of these forms in popular lisp dialects like Common Lisp. I've thought it was confusing why let* existed in Clojure since let binding is only done in a sequential

Re: let vs. let*

In common lisp, 'let' didn't evaluate it's bindings in any guaranteed order (well, it is specified as being evaluated in parallel), however, 'let*' evaluated it's bindings in order from left to right. This enabled you to use the sequentially previous bindings in the evaluation of later bindings

Re: let vs. let*

Basically you the user should not worry about the starred versions On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:40 PM Johannes wrote: > thanks > > Am Donnerstag, 18. Juni 2015 22:35:53 UTC+2 schrieb raould: >> >> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clojure+%22let+vs.+let*%22 >> > -- > You received this message because you are s

Re: let vs. let*

thanks Am Donnerstag, 18. Juni 2015 22:35:53 UTC+2 schrieb raould: > > http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clojure+%22let+vs.+let*%22 > -- 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 fr

Re: let vs. let*

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 4:29:55 PM UTC-4, Johannes wrote: > > Hi! > > I cannot figure out, what the difference between let and let* is. Can > anyone enlighten me? > Let is a macro that wraps let* and adds destructuring. There's a similar relationship between fn and fn*, letfn and letfn*, a

Re: let vs. let*

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clojure+%22let+vs.+let*%22 -- 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

Re: let vs. let*

Hi, Am 07.03.2009 um 07:11 schrieb Stephen C. Gilardi: let* is an an internal implementation detail that supports the special form let. let* does no destructuring. And one might add, that let* is not part of the public API and should not be used directly. Sincerely Meikel smime.p7s Descri

Re: let vs. let*

let* is an an internal implementation detail that supports the special form let. let* does no destructuring. --Steve On Mar 7, 2009, at 12:49 AM, David Sletten wrote: > > I see a lot of let* in macro expansions, but Clojure's "let" already > behaves like Common Lisp's LET*. Is let* archaic?