Oh, you're right, of course. Still, that doesn't quite meet the case I described, since the bindings won't effect any spawned threads/agents.
On Sep 15, 2:47 pm, Alan <a...@malloys.org> wrote: > Binding uses dynamic scope, not lexical scope, right? So any functions > called before the binding expires will be affected by the new > bindings, not just the code explicitly within its lexical scope. > > On Sep 15, 11:35 am, Luke VanderHart <luke.vanderh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Unless I misunderstand something, (binding...) wouldn't work for this > > because I'd have to wrap all of the code I wanted to be "modified" > > within a (binding...) form. Fine if it's one source file, not so fine > > if I have dozens... Or am I missing something? > > > On Sep 15, 2:26 pm, Nicolas Oury <nicolas.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Your example can be solved with (binding ...) > > > > For the proposal, I think it's a bad idea : huge potential for abuse > > > (and importing abuse from other namespaces written by other people) > > > and little benefit. > > > > I wouldn't be so strongly against it if it was in a delimited scope. > > > > In any case, you can probably implement it as a library on top of the > > > compiler, with a code walker. -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
