Re: Negation in core.logic

Sorry to post on an old thread, but just in case someone comes here from Google: I'm just playing with core.logic, and I think I found a way to negate a goal... I don't know if this is advisable or not, but it seems to work: (== 0 (count (run* [arg] (goal arg -- -- You received this mess

Source for Clojure/conj 2012 slides?

Hi, I'm just watching some videos from Clojure/conj 2012 and would like to peruse the slides, but I haven't found a download anywhere on the Internet. Does somebody here have them? Any help will be much appreciated. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro

clojure.zip needs a better way to move nodes

Hi, everybody, I'm just throwing this out to see if the Clojure core team agrees, and if they would like me to code something up and send a PR. clojure.zip works great if you want to walk a tree and add nodes here and there -- append-child, insert-child, insert-left, and insert-right cover all

Why do Clojure collections have (seq) rather than supporting the ISeq interface directly?

...Just trying to understand the rationale between Clojure's design here. As I gradually get deeper into Clojure, I've been highly impressed by how well thought-out everything is, so I'm sure there is a very good reason for this one too. The question is: Why are Clojure's built-in collections *

Re: Why do Clojure collections have (seq) rather than supporting the ISeq interface directly?

Thanks, SS!!! -- 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 unsubscribe from this group, send

Confused by reference to "capturing" (as opposed to "binding") in C. Grand's talk "(not= DSL macros)"

In his talk entitled "(not= DSL macros)", C. Grand recommends designing the core of a DSL with "capturing" rather than binding, then adding binding macros as an extra layer on top if desired. I'm trying to understand what exactly he means by "capturing" in this context. I'm familiar with the us

Re: Confused by reference to "capturing" (as opposed to "binding") in C. Grand's talk "(not= DSL macros)"

Dear B.G., thanks for your response. I already understand the problem of variable capture in macros well. However, is that really what C. Grand is talking about in "(not= DSL macros)"? If you have a video of the talk, the part where he talks about "capturing" comes at about 13:40. -- You recei

Re: Confused by reference to "capturing" (as opposed to "binding") in C. Grand's talk "(not= DSL macros)"

Thanks for the added explanation. I understand now that your advice is simply to write a function for each binding macro, which returns the value(s) bound by the macro. Thanks also for a great talk! The Clojure community is very fortunate to have all this stuff publicly available on video. --

Behavior of (eval) in different namespaces

Does anyone know what's going on here? user=> (let [a 1] (eval 'a)) 1 user=> (ns another-ns) nil another-ns=> (let [a 1] (eval 'a)) CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to resolve symbol: a in this context, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:41) If let-bound locals were treated as symbol

Re: Behavior of (eval) in different namespaces

> > I have to assume you have a def of "a" lying around from previous > experimentation. This isn't valid otherwise. > > --Aaron > Whew... this seemed too crazy to be true, but it makes sense now. False alarm! Thanks! Alex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo