Let bindings map pretty much directly to Java style local variables:
(let [x 42]
(let [x 3]
(+ x 3))
Becomes something like this when compiled to byte code:
x_1 = 42
x_2 = 3
return x_2 +3
So let bindings with the same names are kept separate via modifying the
stored name in the byte
That's a really neat post. Thank you for writing it!
How do bindings created by let fit into that picture?
> The question of how vars work comes up enough that I recently wrote a blog
> post on the subject. Maybe it will be useful to you.
>
The question of how vars work comes up enough that I recently wrote a blog
post on the subject. Maybe it will be useful to you.
http://blog.cognitect.com/blog/2016/9/15/works-on-my-machine-understanding-var-bindings-and-roots
Timothy
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:44 PM Paul Gowder
Your "y" could also be "fib". You are permitted to use the same name
inside the fn.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Walter van der Laan <
waltervanderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> AFAIK there are two options.
>
> You can add a symbol after fn:
>
> (let [fib (fn y [x]
> (cond
>
Thanks Bobby, Francis, Walter! Now trying to wrap my head around the idea
of def as a ref...
On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 2:57:13 PM UTC-6, Francis Avila wrote:
>
> Let bindings are immutable bindings, not refs. They must act as if their
> value could be substituted at the moment they are
AFAIK there are two options.
You can add a symbol after fn:
(let [fib (fn y [x]
(cond
(< x 2) x
:else (+ (y (- x 2)) (y (- x 1)]
(fib 5))
Or, as Bobby already suggested, you can use letfn:
(letfn [(fib [x]
(cond
(<
Let bindings are immutable bindings, not refs. They must act as if their value
could be substituted at the moment they are referenced. Def (i.e. a ref) is a
mutable container whose contents is examined when it is used (not when
referenced), which is why your second example works.
Why doesn't
Note that letfn does allow recursive bindings, though I couldn't comment as
to the implementation details.
On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 3:01:13 PM UTC-5, Paul Gowder wrote:
>
> Hi clojure-world,
>
> I think maybe this is actually related to the complexities of binding
> referenced in the
Hi clojure-world,
I think maybe this is actually related to the complexities of binding
referenced in the previous thread
(https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest_medium=email#!topic/clojure/zBXsrqTN2xs)...
maybe? But it would be amazing if some wise person would help explain...
