Makes sense, thanks! On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@laposte.net> wrote: > > 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
