2 ms·
That was not my complaint. My complaint is that the [id expr id expr ...] form has no benefits except for people disliking parens at the cost of making the let
by bjoli 5y ago
That was not my complaint. My complaint is that the [id expr id expr ...] form has no benefits except for people disliking parens at the cost of making the let for impossible to extend in a backwards compatible way.
SRFI-71 for scheme extends let with support for values, like so:
(let ((q r (quotient/reminder 10 3))) ...)
This for is then also extensible (I have added pattern matching on top of it).
Clojure's is not.
(let [q r (hyptohetical-2-value-quotient/reminder 10 3)] ...)
Makes no sense in clojure.
- fulafel 5y agoIn Clojure land we're more picky about paren usage and we're used to variants of let that are named explicitly. if-let, when-let, reagent/with-let, letfn, etc.
- bjoli 5y agoI would say that all of those are different than what I am saying (if-let and it's ilk are a conditional form. But sure. Rich has done many great decisions with regards to clojure. This part is one of the few I don't agree with (and maybe regular bit-tries instead of rrb-trees).