Re: core.async: loop bindings can't see prior brindings

2013-08-08 Thread Kemar
ug 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nolen > > wrote: > >> You can report issues here: http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/ASYNC >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Kemar >wrote: >> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> it seems that loop

core.async: loop bindings can't see prior brindings

2013-08-08 Thread Kemar
Hi there, it seems that loop bindings cant's see prior bindings made in the same loop when the loop is in a go block: (require '[clojure.core.async :refer [go]]) > (go (loop [x 41 y (inc x)] (println y))) > Rather than printing 42, it either complains that x can't be resolved in that context (in

Re: core.async: faulty rebinding of loop-bindings in go blocks

2013-08-03 Thread Kemar
It appears to be working, awesome! Thanks! Cheers, Kevin Am Samstag, 3. August 2013 21:05:57 UTC+2 schrieb Ghadi Shayban: > > Fixed -- should make it to maven within an hour. > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this grou

core.async: faulty rebinding of loop-bindings in go blocks

2013-08-01 Thread Kemar
There seems to be an issue with the rebinding of loop-bindings using loop/recur in go blocks, specifically when you are just changing the order of the original bindings in a recur call. Take this snippet for example: (require '[clojure.core.async :refer [go timeout]]) > (go (loop [a :black,

Re: ANN: Windows installer for Leiningen

2013-03-31 Thread Kemar
Using lein.bat with powershell I found two issues: First, there is the aforementioned {param($a,$f) (new-object System.Net.WebClient).DownloadFile ($a, $f)} DotNetMethodException. This could be solved by starting the Command Prompt as an Administrator (shift + right-click on the cmd.exe,

Re: Understanding vars

2013-03-18 Thread Kemar
Explicitly derefing the var and calling meta on it works: (meta @#'c) -> {:amazing true} No idea as to why though... Am Dienstag, 19. März 2013 03:45:57 UTC+1 schrieb puzzler: > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Marko Topolnik > > > wrote: > >> This is just about the same as >> >> (def ^:co