On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:48 PM, David Sletten wrote:
>
> ; Clojure. We can access the reference itself via "var".
> (def pung 8)
> (def foo pung) ; i.e., (deref (var pung)) or @#'pung
> (def bar (var pung))
>
> ; "binding" changes value of "pung"--apparently not the variable
> itself, thus
> ;
On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:10 AM, Chouser wrote:
>
>> I think that the strict usage is consistent with Clojure's
>> "binding" macro,
>> which binds a name to a new variable.
>
> Are you sure? It seems to me the most natural mapping from the CL
> concepts to Clojure is:
> CL name -> Clojure symbo
I'm still not *entirely* clear about the mappings from symbols and
namespaces to Vars. I think I sort of understand how it works in practical
terms, but this is a confusing area and getting the terminology nailed down
would be a big help.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Chouser wrote:
>
> On
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:01 AM, David Sletten wrote:
>
> In a language such as Common Lisp where every variable is (effectively) a
> reference variable, we have three concepts: names, variables (references),
> and values (referents). These three things have two connections. In an
> orthodox (per
On Feb 16, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Stuart Halloway wrote:
>
> David Sletten sent me this erratum:
>
> <<
> At the beginning of section 2.4 we have "The symbol user/foo refers to
> a var which is bound to the value 10." Under the next subsection
> "Bindings" we have "Vars are bound to names, but there
On Feb 17, 2009, at 0:17, Stuart Sierra wrote:
> As I understand it, every Var has a name, which is a symbol, but the
> name is an inherent property of the Var and cannot be changed. You
Unless you create a var using with-local-vars, right?
Konrad.
--~--~-~--~~~-
On Feb 16, 3:34 pm, Stuart Halloway wrote:
> Should I be using two different terms, or is the notion of binding
> overloaded?
I think it's overloaded. In Common Lisp, symbols are bound to
values. Clojure's Vars are closer to CL symbols than Clojure symbols
are to CL symbols. (!) It's funky
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Chouser wrote:
>
> I don't know if it's more correct, but it might be less confusing to
> say "The symbol user/foo is bound to a var which has a root value of
> 10".
Eh, well, I'm not sure about that first part. I don't know if the
symbol is bound to the var or
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Stuart Halloway
wrote:
>
> David Sletten sent me this erratum:
>
> <<
> At the beginning of section 2.4 we have "The symbol user/foo refers to
> a var which is bound to the value 10." Under the next subsection
> "Bindings" we have "Vars are bound to names, but the
David Sletten sent me this erratum:
<<
At the beginning of section 2.4 we have "The symbol user/foo refers to
a var which is bound to the value 10." Under the next subsection
"Bindings" we have "Vars are bound to names, but there are other kinds
of bindings as well." The Common Lisp standar
10 matches
Mail list logo
