On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > David Sletten sent me this erratum: > > << > At the beginning of section 2.4 we have "The symbol user/foo refers to > a var which is bound to the value 10." Under the next subsection > "Bindings" we have "Vars are bound to names, but there are other kinds > of bindings as well." The Common Lisp standard defines a binding as > "an association between a name and that which the name denotes". This > is the second sense used in the book. The first sense of a "binding" > between a var and its value is inconsistent. > >> > > Should I be using two different terms, or is the notion of binding > overloaded?
Clojure does have another term already for that first meaning: (def x 5) ==> #'user/x (.hasRoot #'x) ==> true (.getRoot #'x) ==> 5 I don't know if it's more correct, but it might be less confusing to say "The symbol user/foo is bound to a var which has a root value of 10". --Chouser --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
