4 ms·

I always use `or` because it's IMO most readable: (or x 5) ;;=> returns x if x is not nil, else 5 E.g., (-> {:a 1 :b 2} :c (or 5.5)

I always use `or` because it's IMO most readable: (or x 5) ;;=> returns x if x is not nil, else 5 E.g., (-> {:a 1 :b 2} :c (or 5.5) inc)

delish 8y ago
> ;;=> returns x if x is nil, else 5 Should this be: > ;;=> returns x if x is not nil, else 5
- dmichulke 8y ago
  Corrected, thanks! (It was correct in the beginning but then I decided I need to improve it) => https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verschlimmbessern https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verschlimmbessern
- hk__2 8y ago
  `false` is not nil but `(let [x false] (or x 5))` evaluates to 5 ;)
kimi 8y ago
Franky, this looks great and should be in the article :-)
serpix 8y ago
yes! you have eliminated repeating yourself and returning nil. Other ways to do this very simple example: `(some-> m :c (inc 5))` there is no need to defend against nil values. Hickey has your back on built in functions.
lkitching 8y ago
One problem with using or is if the key is associated with false, then it will be ignored in favour of the default. Keywords support a second argument which is the default to use on not-found so you can just write: (-> {:a 1 :b 2} (:c 5.5) inc)