Ouch. Now I realized that it's exactly what happens when you do this to
debug a sequential binding.
(let [x 35
_ (println "x is" x)
y (* 35 3)
_ (println "y is" y)]
; some code
)
Thank you for the elucidation.
Plínio
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
That's correct, and often clojure compilers (like ClojureScript) many
actually completely rename the variable to something else.
Timothy
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Plínio Balduino wrote:
> Thank you
>
> I imagined something like that. Anyway, as the second binding is shadowing
> the first
Thank you
I imagined something like that. Anyway, as the second binding is shadowing
the first, there's no way to access the first value, right?
Plínio
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
> This is not modifying the value it's creating a new scope with a new
> version of x
This is not modifying the value it's creating a new scope with a new
version of x. The binding above is shorthand for:
(let [x 3]
(let [x 42]
(println x))
(println x))
;; prints:
42
3
Timothy
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Plínio Balduino wrote:
> Hi there
>
> I wrote this code ex
