On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Hugh Winkler <hwink...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stuart Halloway
> <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hugh,
>>
>> I don't see how this would work in general, which is why a I suggested
>> a special-purpose macro before. Surely you would not want a binding to
>> force all sequences while that binding is in effect. And if not that,
>> what would the general strategy be for deciding which sequences to
>> force, and which not?
>
>
> OK, well keeping in mind I'm still learning:
>
> I agree a macro would do it, approximately this:
>
> (defmacro safe-binding [bindings & body]
> `(binding ~bindings (doall ~...@body)))
>
>
> but why not make "safe" the default? i.e. use "unsafe-binding" if
> you know it's OK.
>
> The doall just forces the result of the function you're calling,
> right? You said "Surely you would not want a binding to force all
> sequences while that binding is in effect." No, I would not. You only
> need to do wrap the body of the binding call in the doall, right?
>
Uh oh, I see what you mean Stuart. I made f1 return a list of lists:
(defn f1 []
( map (fn [x]
(map (fn [y] *num*) [x])) [1]))
user> (safe-binding [*num* 1024] (f1))
((16))
OK, so much for the magic bullet.
Hugh
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
