Local bindings are immutable.
Your example demonstrates lexical shadowing of bindings.
This is an equivalent program semantically.
(let [x 1
x_1 (inc x)
x_2 (inc x_1)
x_3 (inc x_2)]
x_3)
By the rules of lexical scoping, you cannot access the first `x` but it is
never mutated.
Thanks,
Ambrose
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:42 PM, gvim <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why is this possible in a language based on immutability:
>
> (let [x 1
> x (inc x)
> x (inc x)
> x (inc x)]
> x)
>
> ;;=> 4
>
> Maybe under the hood (ie. memory registers/pointers etc.) this isn't
> strictly mutation but as a relative newcomer to Clojure I find it goes
> against the grain of what I find elsewhere in the language.
>
> gvim
>
>
> --
> 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
> --- 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 [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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
---
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
