Yes, but I meant creating methods rather than regular functions, in a lexical scope. Is it possible to create methods using fn?
On Nov 18, 10:47 pm, Allen Rohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 18, 6:48 pm, samppi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm trying to unit-test a library with which a user can define methods > > on the library's multi-function to change its behavior. So I need to > > be able to define lexically-scoped methods in each test. Is it > > possible to use let to create a lexically-scoped method? > > > The problems I'm encountering are that, unlike for functions, there > > doesn't seem to be a special-form for creating methods, and that even > > if it could be defined it'd go in the current namespace instead of the > > library's namespace. But does anyone know how I can test this anyway? > > > Thanks in advance! > > Yes, this is all possible. > > fn is the special form that creates new functions. > > (fn [x] (* x x)) returns an anonymous function. > > You can also use let to assign names to the anonymous functions: > > (let [foo (fn [x] (* x x)) > (println (foo 3)) > > defn is a macro that translates to > > (def name (fn [args] ...)) > > Allen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
