Hi,
On 11 Okt., 13:29, Ulises wrote:
> sorry for the confusion and the silly questions,
Ehm. Nope. To cite the (german) sesame street:
Wer? Wie? Was?
Wieso? Weshalb? Warum?
Wer nicht fragt bleibt dumm!
Just keep asking. :)
Sincerely
Meikel
--
You received this message because you are subsc
> Hope, that helps.
It does indeed.
So, def either creates or looks up a var of the name of the symbol
given and then every time eval comes across a symbol it tries to
lookup a var of the same name?
(just read http://clojure.org/special_forms#def which I should've read
before posting)
Cheers an
Hi,
or a maybe clearer example, which shows the different states:
; No Var, yet.
user=> (var foo)
java.lang.Exception: Unable to resolve var: foo in this context
(NO_SOURCE_FILE:1)
; Var is now defined. Hence it can be resolved. But it has to root
value, ie. it is "unbound", yet.
user=> (def foo
Hi,
On 11 Okt., 12:45, Ulises wrote:
> user> (def foo)
> #'user/foo
> user> foo
> ;Var user/foo is unbound.
> ; [Thrown class java.lang.IllegalStateException]
> user>
>
> I guess this means there's no var named user/foo and hence the symbol
> cannot get its closest match in name?
You are confu
> Eh. No. I don't think so. The Var has a name and the symbol has a
> name. And an unqualified symbol is resolved to the "closest" Var with
> the same name (conveniently derefing the var to get its contents).
> This might be in the same namespace or in a different namespace which
> was :use'd. I'm
Hi,
On 11 Okt., 12:26, Ulises wrote:
> so in theory one could have a symbol foo bound to a var bar?
Eh. No. I don't think so. The Var has a name and the symbol has a
name. And an unqualified symbol is resolved to the "closest" Var with
the same name (conveniently derefing the var to get its con
> So I would say: "Unqualified symbols in the namespace the def happened
> in will resolve to the def'd Var." (of course only after the def
> happened!)
so in theory one could have a symbol foo bound to a var bar?
U
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "C
Hi,
On 11 Okt., 11:44, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> I guess one should use "mapping" instead of "binding". The var is mapped to
> the symbol "foo" in the namespace *ns*.
>
> I'm saying that because functions for inspecting namespaces are (ns-map),
> etc.
In a determined attempt to increase confusion,
> I guess one should use "mapping" instead of "binding". The var is mapped to
> the symbol "foo" in the namespace *ns*.
> I'm saying that because functions for inspecting namespaces are (ns-map),
Ah! Excellent, thanks.
U
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Grou
2010/10/11 Ulises
> Hi,
>
> I'm sure this has been asked before (although I couldn't find anything
> other than this StackOverflow thread
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2320348/symbols-in-clojure) and, in
> addition to that thread, I have a clarifying question:
>
> Am I right if I say that
you are right (at least as far as I know)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsu
Hi,
I'm sure this has been asked before (although I couldn't find anything
other than this StackOverflow thread
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2320348/symbols-in-clojure) and, in
addition to that thread, I have a clarifying question:
Am I right if I say that when I do (def foo "1") I'm creati
12 matches
Mail list logo
