Hi,
Is it idiomatic to have defn inside defn? eastwood throws def-in-def warning
when I have the following code:
(defn double-square [y]
(defn square [x] (* x x))
(+ (square y) (square y)))
The above code is a simplified example to show the problem. In the above case,
square is a function which is local and I dont want it to be shared outside the
context of double-square.
I can change it to use letfn like below:
(defn double-square [y]
(letfn [(square [x] (* x x))]
(+ (square y) (square y))))
But when you have multiple local functions, it doesnt seem nice to read.
- Uday.
--
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ClojureScript" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
