It seems to me that the first would be immune to redefining what closure/core.let means at the point where f is invoked, while the second one would not be.
I was unable to actually redefine closure/core.let - probably because it is a macro. But some function was used in place of let, than it could be rebound. Or am I betraying my total luck of understanding? :) Thanks, Boris On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 27, 4:12 am, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Is there any practical difference between: >> >> (let [x 2] >> (defn f [] x)) >> >> and >> >> (def f (let [x 2] (fn [] x)))? > > No, are you experiencing one? > > Rich > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
