On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:48 PM, David Sletten <da...@bosatsu.net> wrote: > > ; Clojure. We can access the reference itself via "var". > (def pung 8) > (def foo pung) ; i.e., (deref (var pung)) or @#'pung > (def bar (var pung)) > > ; "binding" changes value of "pung"--apparently not the variable > itself, thus > ; "bar" also reflects changed value. > (binding [pung 9] (list pung foo @bar)) => (9 8 9) > > ; By contrast "let" binds "pung" to a new variable, which shadows the > global. > ; "bar" still refers to global "pung" > (let [pung 9] (list pung foo @bar)) => (9 8 8) > > Do I have it right now?
The code and comments look right to me, but I'm not sure where that leaves us on the original question of terminology. I could say that the var named pung (user/pung, to be specific) has the root value 8, but was there anything "bound" there? And I can't deny that pung becomes bound to 9 since a macro named 'binding' was used. Does that imply that the var was bound to 8 earlier? Was the name 'pung' bound to the Var? Everything seems to have stopped making sense. Perhaps I shouldn't try to post this late at night. --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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
