http://dev.clojure.org/jira This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 4.4 649 25-07-2011 http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1147 Clojure <p>(-&gt; <span class="error">&#91;1 2 3&#93;</span> (fn <span class="error">&#91;args&#93;</span> apply + args))</p> <p>CompilerException java.lang.Exception: Unsupported binding form: 1, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1:13)</p> <p>The expression is expanded to:</p> <p>(fn <span class="error">&#91;1 2 3&#93;</span> <span class="error">&#91;args&#93;</span> apply + args)</p> <p>If this is intended behaviour then at the least the compiler error message is confusing. It would be preferable if the -&gt; macro checked for (fn..) before treating a form as a sequence and injecting the argument.</p> CLJ-1147

Threading macro (->) does not permit inline function declarations

Defect Minor Open Unresolved Unassigned Stephen Nelson Mon, 14 Jan 2013 21:17:51 -0600 Fri, 17 May 2013 14:56:30 -0500 Release 1.5 0 0 <p>Note that this works as you might have hoped:</p> <p>(-&gt; <span class="error">&#91;1 2 3&#93;</span> ((fn <span class="error">&#91;args&#93;</span> (apply + args))))</p> <p>because it expands into:</p> <p>((fn <span class="error">&#91;args&#93;</span> (apply + args)) <span class="error">&#91;1 2 3&#93;</span>)</p> <p>Your suggestion that -&gt; check for (fn ...) before treating it as a sequence and injecting the argument leaves open the question: Why only (fn ...) should be treated specially? Why not (let ...), (for ...), (doseq ...), etc? And if you go that far, how do you decide what should be allowed and what not?</p> <p>I agree with Andy, that it's not realistic suggestion to check for fn,let,etc. Perhaps a doc fix would help here but I'm not sure if we just want to call out (fn ...). I'd recommend closing this unless Stephen speaks up.</p> Global Rank