On Feb 17, 2009, at 0:17, Stuart Sierra wrote:
As I understand it, every Var has a name, which is a symbol, but the
name is an inherent property of the Var and cannot be changed. You
Unless you create a var using with-local-vars, right?
Konrad.
On Feb 16, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Stuart Halloway wrote:
David Sletten sent me this erratum:
At the beginning of section 2.4 we have The symbol user/foo refers to
a var which is bound to the value 10. Under the next subsection
Bindings we have Vars are bound to names, but there are other
I'm still not *entirely* clear about the mappings from symbols and
namespaces to Vars. I think I sort of understand how it works in practical
terms, but this is a confusing area and getting the terminology nailed down
would be a big help.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Chouser
On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:10 AM, Chouser wrote:
I think that the strict usage is consistent with Clojure's
binding macro,
which binds a name to a new variable.
Are you sure? It seems to me the most natural mapping from the CL
concepts to Clojure is:
CL name - Clojure symbol, name, or
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:48 PM, David Sletten da...@bosatsu.net wrote:
; Clojure. We can access the reference itself via var.
(def pung 8)
(def foo pung) ; i.e., (deref (var pung)) or @#'pung
(def bar (var pung))
; binding changes value of pung--apparently not the variable
itself, thus
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Stuart Halloway
stuart.hallo...@gmail.com wrote:
David Sletten sent me this erratum:
At the beginning of section 2.4 we have The symbol user/foo refers to
a var which is bound to the value 10. Under the next subsection
Bindings we have Vars are bound to
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Chouser chou...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if it's more correct, but it might be less confusing to
say The symbol user/foo is bound to a var which has a root value of
10.
Eh, well, I'm not sure about that first part. I don't know if the
symbol is bound to
On Feb 16, 3:34 pm, Stuart Halloway stuart.hallo...@gmail.com wrote:
Should I be using two different terms, or is the notion of binding
overloaded?
I think it's overloaded. In Common Lisp, symbols are bound to
values. Clojure's Vars are closer to CL symbols than Clojure symbols
are to CL
