On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Alan Malloy <[email protected]> wrote: > Stylistically, it's often not very nice to rebind x a number of times; > it's better to choose descriptive names for the intermediate steps. > But there are certainly times occasions where using the same name can > clarify meaning: for example, you're just "tidying up" x into a nicer > form, or canonicalizing it in some way.
A common case IME is monkey-patching x to deal with singular values, particularly nil via a binding like [x (if x x (foo))]. -- Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?! Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more civilized age. -- 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
