I'm also very new but would add that 'filter' also returns a lazy sequence. So 'for' isn't special in that regard (if I understand your comment).
I do 'filter' into 'map' a lot and seeing this question makes me realize 'for' can handle that case nicer so thanks for asking. On Sunday, March 25, 2012 6:49:27 PM UTC-4, Dustin Getz wrote: > > ;; is this sequencing property of for (operate on individual values that will > end up in a seq) > ;; the reason `for` exists? is not not possible to do have nice syntax > wtihout for (or seq-monad)? > > -- 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
