Gary Verhaegen <gary.verhae...@gmail.com> writes:

> As Meikel said in his previous mail, 'do' at the top-level is treated
> specially: each form is treated as a separate top-level form. This is, for
> example, useful for defining a macro that defines multiple functions.


I'd be interested to see an example, where this behaviour is important.
It is certainly producing a negative effect here. Or perphaps I should
say it is covering up a negative effect; given that the compiler is
capable of understanding that 

(def bob3 3) 

introduces a new symbol, I am struggling to see why 

(intern 'user 'bob3 3)

cannot be recognised similarly.


> So what Meikel was really trying to say is that the reason (do (intern
> 'user 'bob3 3) bob3) works is that it is treated the same as
> (intern 'user 'bob3 3)
> bob3
>
> This special handling only occurs when do appears as a top-level form,
> which is the reason why your other examples fail.


I did manage to work out why they failed (although only be inference),
but the exceptional behaviour of do confused me as it confounds the
explanation. I'm happy that I understand now the situation. Still think
it's a bug.

Phil

-- 
-- 
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
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to