Re: Something goofy you can do in Clojure.

2013-04-09 Thread Mark Engelberg
Ah. That's pretty funny :) On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Jim foo.bar wrote: > Hey Mark, don't get paranoid :)... this is all Cedric did! > > user=> (def .3 0.4) > #'user/.3 > > user=> (+ .3 1.7) > 2.1 > > Jim > > > > > On 09/04/13 10:46, Mark Engelberg wrote: > > What version are you running

Re: Something goofy you can do in Clojure.

2013-04-09 Thread Gary Verhaegen
Technically, this is a user error, since . (dot) is not a valid character inside user-defined symbols. Clojure does mostly take the stance that it is a sharp tool and you are allowed to cut yourself, should you really want to. See http://clojure.org/reader for reference, especially these two sente

Re: Something goofy you can do in Clojure.

2013-04-09 Thread Niels van Klaveren
In Clojure 1.5.1: => (+ .3 1.7) CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to resolve symbol: .3 in this context, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1:1) So the only way you can do this is if you def'd .3 before => (def .3 0.4) => (+ .3 1.7) 2.1 On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 10:53:06 AM UTC+2, C

Re: Something goofy you can do in Clojure.

2013-04-09 Thread Jim foo.bar
Hey Mark, don't get paranoid :)... this is all Cedric did! user=> (def .3 0.4) #'user/.3 user=> (+ .3 1.7) 2.1 Jim On 09/04/13 10:46, Mark Engelberg wrote: What version are you running? As far as I know, .3 isn't even a valid representation for a number -- you'd have to write it as 0.3. S

Re: Something goofy you can do in Clojure.

2013-04-09 Thread Mark Engelberg
What version are you running? As far as I know, .3 isn't even a valid representation for a number -- you'd have to write it as 0.3. So I'm not sure where you're running that code snippet such that you don't get an immediate error. On 1.5.1: => (+ 0.3 1.7) 2.0 That said, I think most programmer

Something goofy you can do in Clojure.

2013-04-09 Thread Cedric Greevey
This may look mildly surprising, and suggests one more thing *not* to ever do in production code: user=> (+ .3 1.7) 2.1 user=> :) Shouldn't be hard to figure out how to put a repl in a state where that expression will evaluate to that result. I'm sure mathematicians everywhere are deeply offende