This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2015-10-22
Channels
- # admin-announcements (29)
- # aws (2)
- # beginners (25)
- # boot (110)
- # business (15)
- # cider (39)
- # cljs-dev (3)
- # clojure (90)
- # clojure-czech (28)
- # clojure-hamburg (1)
- # clojure-japan (24)
- # clojure-poland (149)
- # clojure-russia (46)
- # clojure-sg (9)
- # clojure-uk (6)
- # clojure-ukraine (1)
- # clojurescript (105)
- # core-async (37)
- # cursive (9)
- # dato (7)
- # datomic (6)
- # emacs (10)
- # events (1)
- # hoplon (22)
- # jobs (4)
- # ldnclj (38)
- # leiningen (4)
- # off-topic (17)
- # om (173)
- # onyx (134)
- # re-frame (46)
- # reagent (35)
The or-join logic had gotten complex enough I'd probably just define a rule instead. Maybe more personal preference, though.
@bkamphaus: actually, I have them all in rules, but I wanted to simplify my example for you all
and I love that the clauses inside of a rule are by default and
so I don't need to wrap them when in a rule
@bostonaholic: yeah, the split use case for me is this (again, communicating preference more than anything) — different paths to a match = rule. Something like “people with blue or green eyes” is an or-clause. If I have to nest or/and too far, or write out a truth table to make sure I’m thinking through De Morgan’s laws correctly, well maybe a rule
CS to the rescue!