On Tuesday 16 December 2008 11:32, Stuart Halloway wrote: > > Hi, > > > > ... > > > > However, I am left wondering what exactly is the interaction that > > was causing the dot-suffix form of the constructor call to fail in > > a macro expansion. I sense it has to do with the fact that symbols > > (other than gensyms or syntax-unquoted macro arguments) used in > > macro definitions are qualified with the namespace of the macro > > definition when that macro is expanded. > > > > Is this understanding correct? If so, is the behavior deliberate?
> Hi Randall, > > The syntactic sugar forms are reader behavior, and occur too soon: at > read time, not macro expansion time. > > Macros need to expand to real forms, not reader shortcuts. Thanks. That makes sense. I didn't realize the dot-suffix form was a special reader form. Actually, all that's said about this at <http://clojure.org/reader> is: "... Symbols beginning or ending with '.' are reserved by Clojure. ..." > Stuart Randall Schulz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
