Doh. Disregard my code example. :-) The reasoning is correct however. Stuart
> Hi > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Stuart Halloway > <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Lazy evaluation is a harsh mistress. >> >> user=> (def b1 (binding [*num* 1024] (f1))) >> #'user/b1 >> user=> (def b2 (binding [*num* 1024] (f1))) >> #'user/b2 > > Did you mean b1 and b2 to have the same definition? If so, I don't > understand what you are trying to demonstrate by doing that. > >> user=> b1 >> (16) >> user=> b2 >> (16) >> >> The difference between the example above and your example is the >> interaction with the REPL. Your f1 is lazy, and is not realized until >> outside the binding, when the REPL needs it. Your f2, also lazy, is >> realized inside the binding because of the call to first. > > I thought this stuff was supposed to be easier to reason about! :) > Would it perhaps make sense to save the environment that f1 was called > in and use that during the realisation of its result? That would seem > to be far more sensible, but maybe there's a reason it would not work. > > How would one go about fixing f1 (or b1)? > > -- > Michael Wood <esiot...@gmail.com> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
