Hi,
I'm sure this has been asked before (although I couldn't find anything
other than this StackOverflow thread
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2320348/symbols-in-clojure) and, in
addition to that thread, I have a clarifying question:
Am I right if I say that when I do (def foo 1) I'm
you are right (at least as far as I know)
--
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
2010/10/11 Ulises ulises.cerv...@gmail.com
Hi,
I'm sure this has been asked before (although I couldn't find anything
other than this StackOverflow thread
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2320348/symbols-in-clojure) and, in
addition to that thread, I have a clarifying question:
Am I
I guess one should use mapping instead of binding. The var is mapped to
the symbol foo in the namespace *ns*.
I'm saying that because functions for inspecting namespaces are (ns-map),
Ah! Excellent, thanks.
U
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
Hi,
On 11 Okt., 11:44, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess one should use mapping instead of binding. The var is mapped to
the symbol foo in the namespace *ns*.
I'm saying that because functions for inspecting namespaces are (ns-map),
etc.
In a determined attempt to
So I would say: Unqualified symbols in the namespace the def happened
in will resolve to the def'd Var. (of course only after the def
happened!)
so in theory one could have a symbol foo bound to a var bar?
U
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
Hi,
On 11 Okt., 12:26, Ulises ulises.cerv...@gmail.com wrote:
so in theory one could have a symbol foo bound to a var bar?
Eh. No. I don't think so. The Var has a name and the symbol has a
name. And an unqualified symbol is resolved to the closest Var with
the same name (conveniently derefing
Eh. No. I don't think so. The Var has a name and the symbol has a
name. And an unqualified symbol is resolved to the closest Var with
the same name (conveniently derefing the var to get its contents).
This might be in the same namespace or in a different namespace which
was :use'd. I'm still
Hi,
On 11 Okt., 12:45, Ulises ulises.cerv...@gmail.com wrote:
user (def foo)
#'user/foo
user foo
;Var user/foo is unbound.
; [Thrown class java.lang.IllegalStateException]
user
I guess this means there's no var named user/foo and hence the symbol
cannot get its closest match in name?
Hi,
or a maybe clearer example, which shows the different states:
; No Var, yet.
user= (var foo)
java.lang.Exception: Unable to resolve var: foo in this context
(NO_SOURCE_FILE:1)
; Var is now defined. Hence it can be resolved. But it has to root
value, ie. it is unbound, yet.
user= (def foo)
Hope, that helps.
It does indeed.
So, def either creates or looks up a var of the name of the symbol
given and then every time eval comes across a symbol it tries to
lookup a var of the same name?
(just read http://clojure.org/special_forms#def which I should've read
before posting)
Cheers
Hi,
On 11 Okt., 13:29, Ulises ulises.cerv...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry for the confusion and the silly questions,
Ehm. Nope. To cite the (german) sesame street:
Wer? Wie? Was?
Wieso? Weshalb? Warum?
Wer nicht fragt bleibt dumm!
Just keep asking. :)
Sincerely
Meikel
--
You received this
12 matches
Mail list logo
