Hello,
A simple question: why does condp supports optional :>> syntax and not cond?
I feel that it would be nice for readability to have it, either
"horizontally":
(cond
(= x y) :>> (let [foo 1
bar 2]
;; ...
)
(and (odd? x) (odd? y)) :>> (let [foo 3
bar 4]
;; ...
)
;; ...
)
or "vertically":
(cond
(= x y)
:>>
(let [foo 1
bar 2]
;; ...
)
(and (odd? x)
(odd? y))
:>>
(let [foo 3
bar 4]
;; ...
)
;; ...
)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
