On Dec 19, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Stefan Kamphausen wrote: > 1. Is my explanation correct?
It is. The binding form operates on the var, it doesn't affect name resolution within the binding form's body. *val* within the body of the binding still resolves to the let-bound local. While *val* is shadowed by a let-bound local, if you want to refer to the var *val*, use its fully qualified name. > 2. Is this the desired behavior or will it change in the near future? This behavior is well-established. I have no special knowledge of what may or may not change, but changing this behavior seems very unlikely to me. --Steve -- 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
