On Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:36:34 PM UTC-4, Ken Wesson wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:16 PM, siyu798 <siy...@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.
>
prize-door is a set
> > 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.
>
Thanks,
> --
> 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
