On May 27, 2009, at 17:11, Boris Mizhen - 迷阵 wrote: > 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.
No. Both definitions create a closure inside which x has the fixed value 2. When f is invoked, neither x nor let can change that any more. Moreover, given that let is a macro, changing its definition after the evaluation of the initial let form can never make a difference. > 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. If let were a function, then the two forms would be different even without any redefinition, as the function would be called with different arguments in the two cases. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
