@dmirylenka
Thanks. That is useful to know.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM, dmirylenka wrote:
> Just 2 cents:
>
> A name you give to the anonymous function also appears in the stack traces
> instead of the things like fn_123_4532,
> which is very convenient for debugging.
>
> On Friday, August 31
Thanks, this is a *very* useful bit of information.
On Monday, 3 September 2012 10:30:21 UTC+1, dmirylenka wrote:
>
> Just 2 cents:
>
> A name you give to the anonymous function also appears in the stack traces
> instead of the things like fn_123_4532,
> which is very convenient for debugging.
>
Just 2 cents:
A name you give to the anonymous function also appears in the stack traces
instead of the things like fn_123_4532,
which is very convenient for debugging.
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC+2, Erlis Vidal wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I've been reading but I'm still confused abou
Thank you guys!!
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
> defn will create a global var while fn won't...it is only visible in the
> scope it was originally defined...remember you can always do:
>
> (def f (fn [x] ...)) which is he same as defn
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 31/08/12 16:52, E
defn will create a global var while fn won't...it is only visible in the
scope it was originally defined...remember you can always do:
(def f (fn [x] ...)) which is he same as defn
Jim
On 31/08/12 16:52, Erlis Vidal wrote:
Hi guys,
I've been reading but I'm still confused about the differenc
The name given an anonymous function can only be used within the scope of
that function.
This will work:
(fn my-func1 [x] (my-func x)) ; Leads to infinite recursion, of course
This won't work because my-func1 is called outside of the function's
lexical scope:
(fn my-func1 [x] x)
(my-func1 100)
In case of a named anonymous function the name is only bound in the lexical
scope of the anonymous function being defined.
This is useful when defining recursive anonymous functions.
Sent from phone. Please excuse brevity.
On 31 Aug 2012 21:22, "Erlis Vidal" wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've been read
