On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Walter Tetzner <
robot.ninja.saus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:16:29 AM UTC-4, Aaron Cohen wrote:
>>
>> Saying something is obvious and then using the word monad a paragraph
>> later is contradictory. ;)
>>
>> What should happen on the else branch of the if-let; which bindings are
>> in scope and what would be their values?
>>
>>
> None of the bindings should be available in the else branch, since there
> would be no way to know which will succeed before run-time.
>
I actually think that having all the bindings available and just nil for
everything past the first failure would be more useful, and also matches
the intuition that it expands out to nested if-lets
(if-let [a 1 b 2 c nil] [a b c])
(if-let [a 1]
(if-let [b 2]
(if-let [c nil]
[a b c]
[a b c])
[a b c])
[a b c])
=> [1 2 nil]
--
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
