On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:52, Alan <a...@malloys.org> wrote:
> I agree with Tom (and with Stuart). I tend to like using ->> when it's
> convenient, since all you're really doing is performing a list of
> transformations on a single object. However, the let is better
> documentation if that's ever going to matter. Not because it makes it
> easier to understand what operations are being performed - ->> is just
> as good at that - but because you assign names to the intermediate
> results. Then someone reading your code can see what the purpose of
> each transformation is, without having to look at the definition of
> other functions.
>
>
I also find that the let form permits you to drop print statements in to see
what the outcome of various functions are;
(defn [x]
(let [_ (prn x)
x (transform-somehow x)
_ (prn x)]
x))
--
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 unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
