Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> writes: Hi Meikel,
>> Oh, yes. That was the exact issue. But clearly forcing realization >> is not a good solution. Is there some better way to do what I want? >> Maybe my macro should expand to something like that? >> >> ((fn [] (binding [...as before...] body))) > > Shameless self-promotion: > http://kotka.de/blog/2009/11/Taming_the_Bound_Seq.html > > It's not perfect, but maybe it helps. It's a great read to truly understand what's going on. So thanks a lot for that pointer. However, in my case, I think there's a much better solution, which your citation of Rich "running into a lot of such trouble is a sign, that you misuse dynamic variables." pointed me to. Why do I use a dynamic var in the first place? I want to use the simple names in the lexical scope of the `with-schema-imports' block, and I used a dynamic var only because the resolution takes place somewhere in the function call tree originating from there. So a much cleaner solution is to walk the body given to my macro and replace the simple names with qualified names, so that at runtime everything is fully qualified. Bye, Tassilo -- 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
