If you are connected to a swank server, have you tried C-c C-k to
compile the file you're editing?
On Jun 4, 1:15 am, nil wrote:
> Mark, it turns out that everything I need is known and static at hack-
> time. (Sorry for making it sound otherwise) I know all the names,
> values, *and* behaviors
Ok, so what you really want is not to change how your program
functions, but how your IDE/editor functions. That means what you
really want is not a clojure macro, but an emacs macro--you want to
extend the functionality of emacs to make your editing easier. The
clojure code you write is not going
Mark, it turns out that everything I need is known and static at hack-
time. (Sorry for making it sound otherwise) I know all the names,
values, *and* behaviors that I want to use when I'm writing the code
for my tests. I just want my clojurebox symbol completion to work
after having written a bunc
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:36 AM, nil wrote:
>> The problem here is that macros run at compile time, but let bindings
>> exist at run time.
>>
>> If you need the name to be determined at run time you will need to use eval.
>
> Where do I use eval? I tried looking at the argument to see if it was
>
I think you have the right idea, only not quite. :) If you write a
macro to define a function whose name is determined at run-time, you
end up with either a function that your program will never refer to,
or a program that calls functions that may or may not exist, depending
on what run-time values
> The problem here is that macros run at compile time, but let bindings
> exist at run time.
>
> If you need the name to be determined at run time you will need to use eval.
Where do I use eval? I tried looking at the argument to see if it was
called with a string literal vs a symbol, but can't ev
As Ken said, you have to remember macros expand at compile time.
Think of a macro call as "folded up code" that the compiler unfolds
for you. A macro saves you from writing repetitive code.
But if you are trying to define a function whose name isn't known
until runtime, that's a whole different t
I'm sorry. I misread something in the OP.
ignore me, I got nothing.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Daniel Renfer wrote:
> user> (defmacro foo [x]
> (let [name# (symbol (str "foo-" x))]
> `(defn ~name# [] (
> #'user/foo
> user> (let [eff "gee"] (foo eff))
> #'user/foo-eff
>
>
user> (defmacro foo [x]
(let [name# (symbol (str "foo-" x))]
`(defn ~name# [] (
#'user/foo
user> (let [eff "gee"] (foo eff))
#'user/foo-eff
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Daniel Renfer wrote:
>> You don't need to use e
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Daniel Renfer wrote:
> You don't need to use eval to create a function dynamically in a macro.
You don't need to use eval to create a function via a macro at compile
time. But to create a function and intern it in a var whose name is
not known until run time is qu
You don't need to use eval to create a function dynamically in a macro.
For an example, take a look at:
https://github.com/duck1123/ciste/blob/master/src/main/clojure/ciste/sections.clj#L34
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:06 PM, nil wrote:
>> Hi
>>
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:06 PM, nil wrote:
> Hi
>
> Here's another macro-noob question. (Thanks for the help on the
> previous question and please do let me know if stackoverflow is a more
> appropriate place to ask noob questions.)
>
> I'm trying to write a macro (or a function) that defines/dec
Hi
Here's another macro-noob question. (Thanks for the help on the
previous question and please do let me know if stackoverflow is a more
appropriate place to ask noob questions.)
I'm trying to write a macro (or a function) that defines/declares
specifically named functions. In (let [eff "gee"] (
13 matches
Mail list logo
