Hi Btsai, thank you for your offer for help. As I said before I *could* use literals but it wouldn't be convenient. I have a big structure which contains information about "types" (they are types of domain-specific objects). I would like to extract the "methods" I need from this structure and define them programmatically.
Previous solutions to this problem (both by me and other helpful posters) required to pass keywords as literals. While I could do that, maintaining a separate list would be a hassle. Right now I'm using: (doseq [t (an-expession-which-extracts-a-list-of-keywords)] (eval `(defobjecttype ~t))) So the problem is solved for me, although I have to use eval. I'm not sure exactly how dirty this trick is and especially *why* it is considered a "smell". I read it on Paul Graham's "On Lisp" and he vehemently opposes its use but he doesn't explain why or where it is acceptable. Note that he also considered Common Lisp "let*" a smell, which is standard practice in Clojure (and in fact there's no equivalent of Common Lisp "let"). So maybe we are just making too much a big deal of this "eval" thing. I feel however that this problem should be addressed by the macro system somehow (although maybe that's not possible by design). If someone could find a solution which doesn't involve eval it would definitely be more elegant. -- 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
