On Jul 14, 5:12 pm, Stuart Sierra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 3:01 pm, bgray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ok, so *if* this is intended behavior, what have people been doing to
> > bind variables dependant on other bindings? I can't be the first to
> > run into this.
>
> Just nest multiple binding forms:
> (binding [a ...]
> (binding [b ...]
> ...))
>
> Not pretty, but it does what you want. Alternately, use "let" to set
> up values sequentially, then bind them all at once.
>
> (let [a ..., b ...]
> (binding [*a* a, *b* b] ...))
>
> -SS
You could also write a binding* macro that expands to multiple nested
binding forms but looks like the regular binding.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
