with-open and with-local-vars couldn't be thunks - the whole point is creating some lexical variables in the caller's scope. Instead of (with-open [f (file)] (stuff f)) you could require (open-callback (fn [f] (stuff f)) (file)): either could expand into something like ((fn [f] (stuff f)) (file)), but at that point you're just transforming let into fn for fun, and costing yourself efficiency in exchange.
On Dec 22, 1:54 pm, Peter Danenberg <p...@roxygen.org> wrote: > Scheme, for instance, obeys the Law of Macro-Parsimony: "don't use > defmacro," namely, "where defn will suffice;" Clojure, on the other > hand, is macro-liberal. > > In other words, everyone seems to prefer e.g. `(defmacro foo [vars & > body] `(do ... ~@body))' where `(defn foo [vars thunk] ... (thunk))' would > suffice; cases in point: > > with-bindings > with-bindings* > with-in-str > with-local-vars > with-open > with-out-str > with-precision > with-redefs > > Why? -- 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
