Re: let vs. let*
Hi, I fear that I have to excuse me for triggering a debate about principles of behavior patterns on this list. Of course, I tried to answer my question myself using Google. Perhaps I made a mistake on the selection of the right search pattern so I didn't find satisfactory results. The lmgtfy link posted by raould was helpful. Johannes On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 3:22:02 PM UTC+2, Alex Miller wrote: raould, I find lmgtfy links to be a condescending way to answer a question and I would prefer that we not use them on this list. If you have an answer or a link to one, then respond with this, otherwise I do not see a reason to post this. Thanks, Alex On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:35:53 PM UTC-5, raould wrote: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clojure+%22let+vs.+let*%22 -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
My apologies (sincerely). Won't use that again. -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
raould, I find lmgtfy links to be a condescending way to answer a question and I would prefer that we not use them on this list. If you have an answer or a link to one, then respond with this, otherwise I do not see a reason to post this. Thanks, Alex On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:35:53 PM UTC-5, raould wrote: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clojure+%22let+vs.+let*%22 -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
I had to query it myself not knowing what this site was all about, nice tutorial, I think I understood it :) Luc P. raould, I find lmgtfy links to be a condescending way to answer a question and I would prefer that we not use them on this list. If you have an answer or a link to one, then respond with this, otherwise I do not see a reason to post this. Thanks, Alex On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:35:53 PM UTC-5, raould wrote: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clojure+%22let+vs.+let*%22 -- 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. -- Luc Préfontainelprefonta...@softaddicts.ca sent by ibisMail! -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
I don't think this is a let me google that for you question. Let vs let* in Clojure is not at all the same as the popular usages of these forms in popular lisp dialects like Common Lisp. I've thought it was confusing why let* existed in Clojure since let binding is only done in a sequential manner, but I think some answers given here are helpful. Just to point out Clojure dynamic var binding is done in a parallel/unordered way which resembles how Common Lisp let was done. However this is a completely different function and not a special form. Just for comparison with CL. -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
In common lisp, 'let' didn't evaluate it's bindings in any guaranteed order (well, it is specified as being evaluated in parallel), however, 'let*' evaluated it's bindings in order from left to right. This enabled you to use the sequentially previous bindings in the evaluation of later bindings in the same 'let*' init argument, (let* ((eval1 value) (eval2 (+ 1 eval1))) body_form). Clojure seems to have implemented 'let*' and as already mentioned put a wrapper around it so we could have the word 'let' :) On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:29:55 PM UTC-5, Johannes wrote: Hi! I cannot figure out, what the difference between let and let* is. Can anyone enlighten me? Johannes -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 4:29:55 PM UTC-4, Johannes wrote: Hi! I cannot figure out, what the difference between let and let* is. Can anyone enlighten me? Let is a macro that wraps let* and adds destructuring. There's a similar relationship between fn and fn*, letfn and letfn*, and loop and loop*. The starred forms are true special forms that are directly meaningful to the compiler (with effects such as shadowing even local names when in operator position). -- 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.
let vs. let*
Hi! I cannot figure out, what the difference between let and let* is. Can anyone enlighten me? Johannes -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clojure+%22let+vs.+let*%22 -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
thanks Am Donnerstag, 18. Juni 2015 22:35:53 UTC+2 schrieb raould: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clojure+%22let+vs.+let*%22 -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
Basically you the user should not worry about the starred versions On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:40 PM Johannes bra...@nordakademie.de wrote: thanks Am Donnerstag, 18. Juni 2015 22:35:53 UTC+2 schrieb raould: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clojure+%22let+vs.+let*%22 -- 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. -- 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.
Re: let vs. let*
Hi, Am 07.03.2009 um 07:11 schrieb Stephen C. Gilardi: let* is an an internal implementation detail that supports the special form let. let* does no destructuring. And one might add, that let* is not part of the public API and should not be used directly. Sincerely Meikel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
let vs. let*
I see a lot of let* in macro expansions, but Clojure's let already behaves like Common Lisp's LET*. Is let* archaic? It seems to behave the same as let in terms of sequential binding. (let [x 8 y (inc x)] (list x y)) = (8 9) (let* [x 8 y (inc x)] (list x y)) = (8 9) Aloha, David Sletten --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 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: let vs. let*
let* is an an internal implementation detail that supports the special form let. let* does no destructuring. --Steve On Mar 7, 2009, at 12:49 AM, David Sletten da...@bosatsu.net wrote: I see a lot of let* in macro expansions, but Clojure's let already behaves like Common Lisp's LET*. Is let* archaic? It seems to behave the same as let in terms of sequential binding. (let [x 8 y (inc x)] (list x y)) = (8 9) (let* [x 8 y (inc x)] (list x y)) = (8 9) Aloha, David Sletten --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
