On Aug 25, 1:56 pm, Chouser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Allen Rohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Another option would be to give a different name to the new function,
> > and deprecate doseq at some point in the future. Clojure is still
> > fairly new, and
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Allen Rohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Another option would be to give a different name to the new function,
> and deprecate doseq at some point in the future. Clojure is still
> fairly new, and I'd hate to see these kinds of things solidify too
> early.
A ne
> > Unfortunately, this would be a breaking change
>
> Does that mean it's off the table, or just postponed until some future
> "major" release?
>
Another option would be to give a different name to the new function,
and deprecate doseq at some point in the future. Clojure is still
fairly new, an
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, this would be a breaking change
Does that mean it's off the table, or just postponed until some future
"major" release?
--Chouser
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this m
On Aug 23, 3:53 pm, Allen Rohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had a small amount of confusion about the "appearance" or
> "structure" of let, for, and doseq.
>
> We're all familiar with (let), to create local variables
>
> (let [varA (foo)
>varB (bar)]
> (+ varA varB))
>
> (for) do
