> I didn't claim they weren't useful. You're correct - my apologies. I didn't want into get into the why of things when I really was just hoping for a yes/no kind of answer with some history had there been any.
> Apparently (symbol the-name) doesn't suffice Correct. In your example: (defn bar [x] (do-something-with (symbol x))) user=> (bar "quux") ; whatever You're not passing in an unbound name, which is the whole point - otherwise I might as well just pass in a symbol. On Dec 17, 11:31 am, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Trevor <tcr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for responding, but I know all this. > > > 1. I know how to pass string and symbols into functions and I know how > > to coerce. > > 2. I don't want to bind the name, I want to interpret the name as a > > symbol > > In what sense? Apparently (symbol the-name) doesn't suffice for your > purposes. I think we need to know what those purposes actually are, in > much more detail. > > > 3. CL has anonymous macros, so why do you think CL has them - because > > they're not useful? > > I didn't claim they weren't useful. I said, and I quote, "I'm not sure > why you'd want one". That's not quite the same thing, because it > allows for the possibility that there is a good use for them that has > thus far escaped my notice. If you know of such a use, by all means > describe it here. -- 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
