That's what I meant when I mentioned the 'binding' form above. The reason that's okay (to me) is that it explicitly calls out that bindings may be about to change.
On Oct 2, 11:47 am, John Newman <john...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, I'm not sure if your understanding of "binding" is correct. > > because within any lexical scope inside a function, I can > > > pretty much count on my bindings to never change. > > binding is actually like a lexical re-def: > > user=> (def x 1) > #'user/x > > user=> (binding [x 2] (pr x) (binding [x 3] (pr x)) x) > 232 > > user=> x > 1 > > This allows us to confine var re-def to specific scope, safely -- which is > the convention over redefing a var globally. > > That's my understanding of it at least. Anyone can feel free to correct me > if I'm wrong. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
