On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Stuart Sierra <the.stuart.sie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Whoops, this caught me today. Whereas "let" evaluates its bindings > sequentially, "binding" does not! Observe: > > (def a "a1") > (def b "b1") > > (let [a "a2", b a] b) > ;;=> "a2" > > (binding [a "a2", b a] b) > ;;=> "a1" > > I wouldn't call this a bug, but I think it's worth noting in the doc > string for "binding".
Is there a reason why it's better if binding isn't required to evaluate the bindings sequentially? It sure would be nice if they both did that unless there's a compelling reason not to. -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
