Re: Sorry Don't understand for macro, a bug or a newbie-question??
Ah, thank you, so a newbie question. But helped me a lot. Andreas On Jan 18, 10:26 pm, Jack Moffitt j...@metajack.im wrote: doesn't show any effect of the for. The only difference is the additional statement at the end. I can not imagine how this statement sequentially behind can influence the for. for returns a lazy sequence. In the first case, in printing out the result to the REPL, the lazy sequence is realized, and in the second, the result is discarded so it is never realized. jack. -- 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
Re: Sorry Don't understand for macro, a bug or a newbie-question??
doesn't show any effect of the for. The only difference is the additional statement at the end. I can not imagine how this statement sequentially behind can influence the for. for returns a lazy sequence. In the first case, in printing out the result to the REPL, the lazy sequence is realized, and in the second, the result is discarded so it is never realized. jack. -- 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
Re: Sorry Don't understand for macro, a bug or a newbie-question??
for returns a lazy sequence.You may prefer doseq: (defn fortest2 [] (doseq [a (range 2 10) b (range 2 10)] (do (println x: a b: b) (list a b))) (println ende) ) (fortest2) doseq will be forced for side-effects. 2012/1/19 Jack Moffitt j...@metajack.im doesn't show any effect of the for. The only difference is the additional statement at the end. I can not imagine how this statement sequentially behind can influence the for. for returns a lazy sequence. In the first case, in printing out the result to the REPL, the lazy sequence is realized, and in the second, the result is discarded so it is never realized. jack. -- 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 -- 庄晓丹 Email:killme2...@gmail.com 伯岩(花名) bo...@taobao.com Site: http://fnil.net 淘宝（中国）软件有限公司 / 产品技术部 / Java中间件 -- 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
