On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Sean Devlin<francoisdev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think your unquote is okay. ClojureQL does something similar. > > However, my gut says this should be in a doseq, not a for statement. > Could be totally wrong, tough.
I think the OP is trying to build and return a list, not trying to execute a series of operations. If I'm right, then 'for' is better than 'doseq'. > On Jul 6, 2:39 pm, Mike <cki...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Newbie question here. Probably answered in Stu's book, but I forgot >> it at home today. >> >> is: >> >> (for [x [1 2 3]] `(some-symbol ~x)) >> >> dangerous? I mean, assuming that some-symbol is bound and all. At >> the REPL I get >> >> ((user/some-symbol 1) (user/some-symbol 2) (user/some-symbol 3)) >> >> which is what I'm interested in getting, but somehow the fact that >> "for" is a macro and I'm escaping x assuming it's there is >> disconcerting. I can't think of any way in which it's dangerous. Is it important to you that the symbol become fully-qualified? If so, then what you've got is fine -- are you writing a macro? If some-symbol is not referring to a Var, though, it's more likely you want a regular quote than a syntax quote, in which case it may be more idiomatic to build a vector: (for [x [1 2 3]] ['some-symbol x]) Or if you really do need a list: (for [x [1 2 3]] (cons 'some-symbol (list x))) --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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
