Closed maacl closed 11 years ago
It's a code example that does not define any locals. Yes, the argument is indeed a Reactor
. Would it be
better to make it more demonstrative with a let
that defines the argument?
If it is meant not to be connected to the two previous sub-sections and the reactor and subscription (which seems odd as "key" is used as key in both in the subscription and the pushed event) defined there, that should certainly be clarified somehow.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Michael Klishin notifications@github.comwrote:
It's a code example that does not define any locals. Yes, the argument is indeed a Reactor. Would it be better to make it more demonstrative with a let that defines the argument?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/clojurewerkz/meltdown/pull/1#issuecomment-24887184 .
Good point, it is fairly clearly assumes the sections above are read first. OK, let's merge this and see if anyone complains about this version.
:+1:
If I am not mistake "r" should be "reactor" in: