Ambrose, thanks -- I was NOT aware of that. Sorry I misunderstood your
original.
Andy, good advice and I agree. Thanks. I'll think on it then.
Cheers,
Michael
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:20:57 PM UTC-6, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Michael O'Keefe <michael....@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> - Ambrose, both (number? %) and number? are valid post-condition
>> forms; the issue is that the post-condition check bumps the recur out of
>> tail position
>>
>>
>>
> I'm aware of the context, I just wanted to make sure you were aware that
> {:post [number?]} is a no-op.
>
> Thanks,
> Ambrose
>
--
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
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
