On May 3, 5:22 pm, André Thieme <splendidl...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Some of the limitations: > 1. (defmacro x [] `(let [a# ~(atom 0)])) > > 2. (defmacro y [] `(let [a# ~(comp inc inc)])) ; from that link > > 3. (defmacro z [] `(let [a# ~((fn [x#] (fn [] x#)) 0)])) > > All three calls fail, (x) and (y) and (z). > I see no plausible reason why it *should* be that way.
I do - because most of the time, embedding an object in code is accidental, caused by messing up the quoting and unquoting. I would prefer that evaling something that cannot be produced by the reader be an error. I can see that in some cases, having eval pass unexpected types through unchanged can be useful, but I think it would be much more common for it to result in hard-to-debug errors, especially for beginning macro writers. - Chris Perkins -- 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
