But that would destroy one of the most useful features Lisp has to offer, interactive coding.
Live coding would be impossible w/o this behavior as you would need to find and update all callers. Yuk. David On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Alyssa Kwan <alyssa.c.k...@gmail.com>wrote: > I ran into this while working on making functions durable. Here's a > contrived example: > > => (defn a > ([x] x) > ([x y] (+ (a x) (a y)))) > #'user/a > > => (a 1 2) > 3 > > => (def b a) > #'user/b > > => (b 1 2) > 3 > > => (defn a [x] > (- x)) > #'user/a > > => (b 1 2) > -3 > > Is this what people expect? I would think that the original > definition of a, which is self-referencing, should point to itself no > matter what it's named, not get resolved at invoke-time to see what > the var is currently resolving to. > > Thanks, > Alyssa Kwan > > -- > 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<clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- 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
