On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:16 PM, siyu798 <siyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2011 4:38:17 PM UTC-4, Ken Wesson wrote:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM, siyu798 <siy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > (set/difference doors opened-door picked-door)
>>
>> Shouldn't that be wrapped in (first ...) or something?
>
> do you mean wrap the returned picked-door set in (first ...)? Since this
> is a three doors scenario so there should always be one door left to switch
> to, thus no need to use first.
There's a difference between :a and #{:a}, though, and it will cause
the switch case to never win since if prize-door is :a and picked-door
ends up #{:a} they won't compare equal.
> For some reasons I always have the impression that it's not idiomatic to use
> chained let form like the play fn here, is there a more idiomatic way to
> write this code?
AFAIK there is nothing whatsoever wrong with using chained let. It's
"procedural-ish" but it is still functional (immutable locals and all
that), often clearer than a densely-nested expression (not to mention
when some of the bound values get used more than once), and perhaps
most importantly, it works just fine in practice.
--
Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?!
Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true
hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more
civilized age.
--
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
