I haven't been following the new atom stuff, so I was wondering why atom would be best in this situation, vs a ref? Thanks.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Parth Malwankar <parth.malwan...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On Dec 21, 11:47 pm, chris <cnuern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would like to be able to encapsulate local state in a closure. > > Specifically, I would like a function that returns an incrementing > > integer, thus: > > (test_func) > > 1 > > (test_func) > > 2 > > What is the best way to go about this? With local bindings is failing > > and I can't figure just why... > > > > One way to do this would be to use atom. > > (defn mk-counter [start] > (let [n (atom start)] > (fn [] (swap! n inc)))) > > (def counter (mk-counter 0)) > > user=> (counter) > 1 > user=> (counter) > 2 > user=> (counter) > 3 > > Parth > > (def test_closure > > (with-local-vars [one 1] > > (fn [] (var-get one)))) > > #'user/test_closure > > user> (test_closure) > > ; Evaluation aborted. > > The var is null when I call the closure. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
