Thanks again to all for the help, clj-cont now supports the new and dot
special forms. This also means that dosync, doto, .. all work perfectly
fine from within a with-call-cc form.
You can now write things like this:
(let [cc (atom nil)]
[(with-call-cc
(. (let-cc k
(reset! cc k)
(k
That was it! At one point I knew these things. Thanks much.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Eric Tschetter wrote:
>
> > (let [myref (ref {})]
> > (dot
> >clojure.lang.LockingTransaction
> >(list 'runInTransaction (fn [] (commute myref assoc :mykey :myval)
> > I'm getting a instanc
> (let [myref (ref {})]
> (dot
> clojure.lang.LockingTransaction
> (list 'runInTransaction (fn [] (commute myref assoc :mykey :myval)
> I'm getting a instance method not found exception which seems odd. I looked
> at LockingTransaction.java and I see that runInTransaction does in fact
Thanks all for the pointers, this looks like a workable approach. In my
case I'm not bothered by the performance hit from reflection (CPS
transformation creates an obscene number of anonymous functions anyway).
However I am running into an issue. Here's my dot function:
(def not-seq? (comp not se
On Mar 21, 10:23 pm, Timothy Pratley wrote:
> You may be able to achieve what you want by directly accessing
> Clojure's reflector class instead of using the special form:
You could also call Java's reflection API directly.
-Stuart Sierra
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Yo
You may be able to achieve what you want by directly accessing
Clojure's reflector class instead of using the special form:
user=> (clojure.lang.Reflector/invokeInstanceMethod
"Hello" "substring" (to-array [1 2]))
"e"
There is also invokeStaticMethod (and others).
Regards,
Tim.
On Mar 22, 12
Or rather I did not express that requirement clearly enough.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:21 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Kevin Downey wrote:
>
>>
>> you want defmacro not definline. the result of a macro is a data
>> structure. that data structure is then evaluated in
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Kevin Downey wrote:
>
> you want defmacro not definline. the result of a macro is a data
> structure. that data structure is then evaluated in place of the call
> to the macro. definline (I think?) behaves similar to a function, so
> if it returns a data structure
you want defmacro not definline. the result of a macro is a data
structure. that data structure is then evaluated in place of the call
to the macro. definline (I think?) behaves similar to a function, so
if it returns a data structure, you just get that data structure (the
data structure is not th
