On Feb 13, 2009, at 13:31, Mark Volkmann wrote: > What are some reasons to use with-local-vars instead of let or > binding?
Let just creates bindings for a lexical scope. They cannot be modified at all. Binding and with-local-vars deal with vars, i.e. mutable references. Binding creates a dynamic scope for already existing vars that are accessible in some namespace. With-local-vars also creates a dynamic scope, but for newly created anonymous vars. So far for the theory. I have to admit that in my own experience, every time I considered using with-local-vars, I ended up realising that what I really wanted is atoms or refs. Which means that I cannot cite a use case for with-local-vars. I scanned through the source code of clojure and clojure-contrib to see if with-local-vars is used anywhere at all, but the answer is no. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
