CODEWITHSUNDEEP
clojure
Arthur Ulfeldt
Arthur Ulfeldt

Reputation: 91534

let vs letfn for defining local functions in clojure?

When in practice should I use letfn vs. let for defining local functions? What about cases where I want both local functions and local non-functions?

Upvotes: 46

Views: 10126

Answers (2)

Rayne
Rayne

Reputation: 32625

If all I need is one or a few local functions, I letfn them. If I need to define a mix of functions and non-functions, I'll just use a normal let. letfning and leting would be a very verbose way to do this.

However, if you need mutual recursion through your local functions, you'll have to letfn them either way.

Short version: use them when you think it looks better, and when it's convenient. There are no hard and fast rules for using either. They are just tools in the Clojure toolbox.

Have fun!

Upvotes: 44

mikera
mikera

Reputation: 106351

Normally it's easier and neater to use let: that way you can define a set of both functions and non-functions in a single form, and even refer back to previous definitions:

(let [f     (fn [x] ....)
      value (reduce f some-collection)
      foo   bar]
  .....)

letfn is really only needed when you want to define multiple functions that recursively refer to each other. let won't work in this case because it doesn't support recursive references.

Upvotes: 25

Related Questions