Hi, On Feb 8, 2:06 pm, Roman Roelofsen <roman.roelof...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ah, that makes sense, thanks! Is using (gensym) the common solution > here? So far I thought that (gensym) is more a internal function that > I normally never need to call directly. In such a case using gensym is the normal solution. When you don't have the "escape" situation, using # is prefered since it removes the need for a surrounding let just containing gensym's. Sincerely Meikel -- 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
