So there's a different macro analogous to "String." for a bunch of different classes, and it doesn't work for arbitrary classes?
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@laposte.net>wrote: > > On 08.06.2009, at 21:59, Andrew Wagner wrote: > > > Just to be clear, is (String.) a macro? I thought it was just a > > special form. > > Let's ask Clojure: > > (macroexpand-1 '(String.)) > -> (new String) > > So it's a macro. The only difference between a macro and a special > form is that a macro expands into something, whereas a special form > is handled directly by the compiler. This also means that the > distinction is implementation-dependent: Clojure 1.1 could very well > implement (String.) as a special form, or implement new as a macro. > > Konrad. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
