Interesting discussion - I was pretty surprised to see this can happen
I don't understand all the details about the solutions discussed in this
thread, but it seems that the only way to ensure no local can be clobbered,
gensym'ed or not, is to introduce into the RT a "local resolution phase"
Personally I think preventing unexpected gensym collisions is the more
important property, otherwise it's not even worth having, might as
well just make your own cryptic names. I don't think you can have
both.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Kevin Tucker wrote:
> Yeah, sorry, missed that.
>
> How does making the gensyms unreadable make things worse for
> macroexpand than they are in CL?
It doesn't. Just worse than they currently are in Clojure. :)
--
You received this message because you are subsc
Yeah, sorry, missed that.
How does making the gensyms unreadable make things worse for
macroexpand than they are in CL? If the gensym is used more than once
in the expansion (like bound to something in a let then referenced),
then reading the expansion back in will read two different symbols and
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Kevin Tucker wrote:
> I in CL they can be read but aren't interned in any package so every
> time you read it you get a different symbol.
Yes, I know; I said that myself in the first post. But your first post
inspired in me the idea of simply making symbols that
I in CL they can be read but aren't interned in any package so every
time you read it you get a different symbol.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to c
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Kevin Tucker wrote:
> This is something that I have been wondering about too. In CL the
> symbols gensym produces can not be read by the reader so there can be
> no collision cause the only way to get a handle on the symbol is to
> create it with gensym and hold o
This is something that I have been wondering about too. In CL the
symbols gensym produces can not be read by the reader so there can be
no collision cause the only way to get a handle on the symbol is to
create it with gensym and hold on to it. In other words you couldn't
construct a symbol that
It's one thing to try to protect the programmer from accidentally
shooting himself on the foot, but I don't think it is as necessary for
a language to prevent him from doing it on purpose.
On 8 nov, 02:59, John Harrop wrote:
> user=> (def q 'G__723)
> #'user/q
> user=> (def r (gensym))
> #'user/
user=> (def q 'G__723)
#'user/q
user=> (def r (gensym))
#'user/r
user=> q
G__723
user=> r
G__723
user=> (= q r)
true
It's possible to anticipate the next gensym name that will be generated and
then engineer a collision, and therefore possibly variable capture
unintended by the author of a macro.
10 matches
Mail list logo
