3 ms·
Yeah, in thinking about my example a little more and generalizing, I think one of the problems that people have with reading clojure is that it doesn't have as
by n72 13y ago
Yeah, in thinking about my example a little more and generalizing, I think one of the problems that people have with reading clojure is that it doesn't have as robust a syntactic indication of scope that other languages have.
- JackMorgan 13y agoDon't you mean clojure has a MORE robust indication of scope than other languages? In clojure you can nest lets, and it is very obvious when the binding is out of scope, but in c-style languages, once bound, they stay bound till the end of the function.
- TylerE 13y agoNope, Nimrod (at least) has full lexical scopes if you want proc foo(x: int): int = let z = x * 2 #z visible block: let y = z * 4 #z & y visible let foo = 3 #z and foo visible, y out of scope
- JackMorgan 13y agoI said "c-style", not ML style.