This post worries me. I've considered rewriting functions as inlining-macros for optimization purposes. But I thought it would be a transparent change. This post shows that it's not a transparent change, and could potentially lead to some very odd looking bugs.
What if I wanted to optimize println by replacing it with a inlining- macro? Now users that rebind println to do something extra will be bewildered that the binding is not working. Any thoughts? -Patrick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
