Sure looks like a quoting problem:
user=> (require 'clojure.contrib.core)
nil
user=> (clojure.contrib.core/-?> 1 inc)
2
user=> (clojure.contrib.core/-?> 1 inc inc)
#<CompilerException java.lang.Exception: Unable to resolve symbol: -?>
in this context (NO_SOURCE_FILE:214)>
user=> (use 'clojure.contrib.core)
nil
user=> (clojure.contrib.core/-?> 1 inc)
2
user=> (clojure.contrib.core/-?> 1 inc inc)
3
user=>
It's obviously calling -?> recursively when there's additional args,
and when it does, it's obviously looking for -?> in the current ns
instead of for clojure.contrib.core/-?>. Which wouldn't happen with
`(-?> ~foo ~bar). Someone used something like (list '-?> foo bar)
instead, or something.
Someone ought to open an Assembla ticket for this.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clo...@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+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Link doesn't work. It goes to a login prompt and not to ... well,
whatever you intended it to go to.
Does it?
> You have to be logged in
Then, in my opinion, it does NOT work fine. I should be able to VIEW
anything non-confidential without logging in, though I expect to
possibly have to login to POST stuff. (And if something IS
confidential, but is also intended for me, then I should actually have
whatever login is needed to view it. Say, the login for my gmail
account.)
Furthermore, the link was posted as a response to one of my posts
here. This implies that the link is meant for me, and that I should be
able to read whatever's there (the actual meat of the response to my
post, presumably) with my existing access credentials.
Posting a reply to someone that consists solely of a link that, when
accessed by that someone, throws up an access denied message in their
face, is an equivalent act to sending them an encrypted reply for
which they don't have the key, or handing them a locked briefcase for
which they don't know the combination. So, kind of silly, and
ineffective at actually communicating with them since they can't read
your reply.
Hence my assumption that a mistake of some sort had been made. It
seems unlikely that someone would intentionally send me a reply I
can't actually read, so I figured they did not intend that effect, but
technical problems of some kind occurred or they simply misspelled the
URL.
Now I'm simply confused. What, exactly, was intended? And if there's
nothing actually private-to-me about the attempted communication and
someone here is prviy to its contents, perhaps they could simply
repost those contents here?
Effective communication tip: Please preserve links in responses, so that when somebody is trying to track down issues they don't have to work back through the thread to find links.
Stu
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clo...@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+u...@googlegroups.com
Ah, so there was indeed a technical snafu. Glad that's cleared up.
> Effective communication tip: Please preserve links in responses, so that when somebody is trying to track down issues they don't have to work back through the thread to find links.
Sorry. I'm using gmail's web interface, which gives a very good
presentation of discussion threads and read/unread. (My first post
excepted; I was replying to a post that was posted before I
subscribed, so it wasn't mailed to me, and so I used the icky Google
Groups interface to reply to that one. In particular, the link's just
there a click away from any post to this thread -- at least, it is for
me. I guess if you're using other mail software (or deleting old
messages once read) you'd have more trouble finding it.
That's OK. Thanks.
I can confirm that the link works now.