Errata for Programming Clojure

#44272: This is about "cond". I got the impression that Clojure supports the Common Lisp cond form (with parentheses). But when I tried typing the example code, I got an error:

(cond
((< x 10) "x is less than 10")
((> x 10) "x is greater than 10")
(:else "x IS 10"))
=> cond requires an even number of forms
[Thrown class java.lang.IllegalArgumentException]

After reading the paragraphs on cond, I thought Clojure supported both the Common Lisp form that had parentheses and the form that didn't have parentheses. Maybe the paragraph can have a note about that? I wouldn't have understood this without typing in the example.
--Fiel Sixto C. Cabral

#45434: In the first anonymous fn example, "A fine day" string is used.
Instead, to be consistent with other examples nearby, "A fine day it is" ought to be used. --Pavel Repin

#47336: On page 56, we define the function "greeting" in the file exploring.clj. On page 57, we redefine the function "greeting" to accept multiple arguments.

It might be clearer to name these two functions differently.--Larry Jones

#47337: On page 58, we define "indexable-words?" as a top-level function. On page 59, we reuse that name but bind it to a locally defined function.

A footnote might be nice indicating that the second usage shadows the first.--Larry Jones

#45354: The metadata reader macros described have been deprecated with the release of Clojure 1.2 -- '^' is now used to attach metadata to objects (with a shortcut for type hinting), and '#^' is no longer supported.--Michael Saelee

#47364: On page 77, we provide sample code for reader/tasklist.clj. On page 78, we then shift to example/tasklist.clj. For several minutes, I thought these we two different files needed to compile a Clojure class. Eventually, I read paragraph 4 on page 78 and discovered that files in example illustrate the provided sample code but files in reader/tasklist.clj are code that I might enter. I not mentioning the difference between code in reader and example until almost a page after introducing reader confusing.--Larry Jones

#47381: On this page, we define the symbol x twice. When I was first entering this data myself, I did not (since I'd just defined x). When I entered the function (dorun x), I DID NOT see the same result as displayed in the book. Although I eventually determined the reason for this difference, I think it would be worthwhile to emphasize the need to define this symbol twice.--Larry Jones