Stephen C. Gilardi a écrit : > Here are some suggestions of mine. I don't claim they're standard: > > - Avoid using an argument name or let-bound local name that > "shadows" the (unqualified) name of a var you need to use within its > scope > - Failing that, use a namespace qualified symbol to refer to the var > - If namespace qualifying a symbol is too verbose, use "alias" to > create a shorter name for the namespace I agree on these three first steps.
> Regarding binding itself, binding a var is an operation on the var > object itself. For a given var, that operation is the same and has the > same effect no matter how you acquired a reference to the var: Except that in one case (name) you acquire the current value of the var but not the var itself. It doesn't matter as long as you are in function position but, elsewhere, it makes a difference (cf my response to parent post). Christophe -- Professional: http://cgrand.net/ (fr) On Clojure: http://clj-me.blogspot.com/ (en) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
