On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Brian Goslinga <quickbasicg...@gmail.com> wrote: > For example, is this piece of code legal? > (let [x 5] > (* x 2)) > Currently it is. However, if we restricted the shadowing of locals, it > may or may not be -- you cannot tell unless you look at the > surrounding context.
So, the restriction would cost us a kind of compile-time analogue of the referential transparency whereby purely functional snippets of code can be entirely understood and reasoned about in isolation. Clearly that would be bad. -- Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?! Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more civilized age. -- 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
