On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 08:50, Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 4:10 pm, Nicolas Oury <nicolas.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > Note also that the OP's original example does not require anything > more than what defmacro already provides. And turning function calls > into macro calls is not a great idea; it won't cover the use of apply > and similar.
Hmmm, that's odd. Perhaps I've missed a message somehow, but I'm not sure why name-space manipulation isn't the right thing to use. To condense, I want to "change the behaviour" of (foo ...), is that right? If so, then instead of getting the definition of foo from its usual name space, couldn't I get it from a 'tracing foo' name space or 'wrapping foo in bar' name space? I think I could do this with macros, such that the usual name space that foo comes from is used, but foo is 'redefined' with a macro to do something that masquerades as foo and probably/maybe calls the 'real' foo eventually. Problem is that macros interact with apply, etc. so I'm back to thinking name space manipulations are the right thing, or that I've skimmed too much and don't understand the problem. :-) -Doug -- 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
