On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Konrad Hinsen
<konrad.hin...@laposte.net> wrote:
> Here is another solution that I consider preferable to the use of
> load.
Konrad, this is an interesting approach, and it does feel like a
better way to organize similar modules than using load.
However, there seems to be one way that this solution falls short of
the load-and-redefine technique. Imagine if, in the example above,
the function that you want to set up for extension is
print-grav-stats. I don't think that will work with your method
because print-grav-stats refers to variables that would not be in
scope when the macro expands. If there were a way to declare all the
variables in the body of the macro BEFORE the let, and then the
definitions, I think that might fix it, but I'm not totally sure how
to do that.
If you don't have side effects in forms, you can simply execute the
forms before the let, thus ensuring all vars are in scope. I think
just changing expansion to:
(list (list 'quote (cons 'do forms))
(list 'list (list 'quote `symbol-macrolet) param-map
(list 'quote (cons 'do forms))))
would do the trick.
Not sure what to do to handle forms with side effects.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
