Why would that be fine? On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 10:39:17 PM UTC+2, whodidthis wrote: > Are there any thoughts on code like this: > > > #_#?(:cljs (def unrelated-1 nil)) > > > #?(:cljs (def unrelated-2 nil)) > > > #?(:cljs (def unrelated-3 nil)) > > > #?(:clj (def n 10)) > > > #?(:clj (defn num [] n)) > ; compile on clj =>RuntimeException: Unable to resolve symbol: n > > > I guess it's fine if it continues to work that way but I can imagine it being > a little surprising from time to time heh
-- 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/d/optout.
