dotimes is for doing things n times. doseq is for seqs. Use dotimes when
you can, doseq when you can't.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Cecil Westerhof cldwester...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-08-05 19:04 GMT+02:00 Thomas Heller th.hel...@gmail.com:
If you don't need the result of the for loop
2014-08-06 9:48 GMT+02:00 Thomas Heller i...@zilence.net:
dotimes is for doing things n times. doseq is for seqs. Use dotimes when
you can, doseq when you can't.
OK, I thought so, but wanted to be sure.
And I also use doseq on a place where dotimes would not work:
(doseq [arrayRange
I wanted to play again with Clojure. ;-)
I wanted to test the random generator. For this I wrote:
(def intArr (make-array Integer 10))
(for [i (range 10)]
(aset intArr i (int 0)))
(for [i (range 1)]
(let [index (rand-int 10)]
(aset intArr index (int (inc (aget intArr index))
(for
On 5 August 2014 at 19:41:03, Cecil Westerhof (cldwester...@gmail.com) wrote:
When run in the REPL it gives the output I expect, but when executed
as a program, it does not give any output at all. What is going on
here?
Because `for` is lazy. In the REPL the result has to be computed
If you don't need the result of the for loop (which you don't in your
example) use doseq.
Same syntax as for but not lazy and no return value (well, nil to be
exact)
(doseq [i (range 10)]
(aset intArr i (int 0)))
...
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:41:08 PM UTC+2, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
I
2014-08-05 19:04 GMT+02:00 Thomas Heller th.hel...@gmail.com:
If you don't need the result of the for loop (which you don't in your
example) use doseq.
Same syntax as for but not lazy and no return value (well, nil to be
exact)
I already use dotimes, or is doseq better?
--
Cecil
