On Nov 5, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Laurent PETIT wrote:
>
> If I understand well, you are re-def'ing the var. If so, then no
> problem, because you have mistaken "redefinition of a var" for
> "dynamic rebinding of a var".
>
> redefinition of a var will still be possible for non dynamically
> rebindable
Hello Lee,
2010/11/5 Lee Spector :
>
> On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Stuart Halloway wrote:
>> * code path for using vars is now *much* faster for the common case,
>> and you must explicitly ask for :dynamic bindability
>
> This has been bouncing around in my head for the last week or so,
>
On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Stuart Halloway wrote:
> * code path for using vars is now *much* faster for the common case,
> and you must explicitly ask for :dynamic bindability
This has been bouncing around in my head for the last week or so, occasionally
colliding with the memory of Rich
I'm not sure about this either, just wait for the videos of the conj
then you will get information on this.
On 27 Okt., 22:16, ka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please explain this!
>
>
>
> > code path for using vars is now *much* faster for the common case, and you
> > must explicitly ask for :dynamic bindab
> Please explain this!
>
>> code path for using vars is now *much* faster for the common case, and you
>> must explicitly ask for :dynamic bindability
Earlier vars were looked up each time they were accessed inside
functions because there was no way of telling if it was being
dynamically rebound
Hi,
Please explain this!
> code path for using vars is now *much* faster for the common case, and you
> must explicitly ask for :dynamic bindability
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@google
Clojure 1.3 Alpha 2 is now available at
http://clojure.org/downloads
= CHANGES =
0 Changes from 1.3 Alpha 1 to 1.3 Alpha 2
1 Changes from 1.2 to 1.3 Alpha 1
2 About Alpha Releases
= 0 Changes from 1.3 Alpha 1 to 1.3 Alpha 2
* code path for using vars is now *much* faster for the
