Clear up possible confusion #28
Conversation
|
Sigh. I'd --amend that commit and fix my own typo of "their"...but alas, too late. |
|
You're just changing x to i here and using it in more than one place. I'm not sure this really clears up any confusion. Is there a different or more detailed way to show this? |
|
The issue for me was using x a few lines before and binding to x again later. I wasn't sure if it needed to be x again for some reason, or could be a more common variable for holding an integer, say i. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I can come up with a more appropriate variable than i, but I do think it's more useful than repeating x. |
|
Ok, i'll buy that for min-1. I can see how that could possibly be confusing. There is no need for the change to min-2. Can you resubmit a patch that just addresses min-1? |
|
Not trying to be pedantic, but doesn't it make sense to keep the change in there for min-2? I would wonder why the change back to using x for min-2, and if the "x & more" needed to be repeated, or just as well could have been i again. I realize it's a tiny detail but with the concept of things not changing in Clojure and bindings to vars as important as they are, I do think it's worth debating and appreciate the time you're giving to it! |
|
Ok, i've pulled this in. Thanks. |
|
Thanks Aaron! Buy you a beer next time you're in SF :-) |
As someone new to clojure, the reuse of x made me think that was somehow necessary. Tried it out and realized that of course was silly. So, this small change might help others see it more clearly.