When we talk about a clojure (or other lisp) prog, what should we say when refer an object declared in it? For example:
(let [a ...
Of course, if a is a function, we say function a, but what should we say when it's not a function? Form? Data? Symbol? Literal?
Generally, we say those things in other prog language variables or objects.
The let special form creates bindings between symbol(s) and a value.
The official documentation for let actually uses the vocabulary and wording that you are looking for and should use, specifically the Binding Forms section sheds more light to the subject:
The basic idea is that a binding-form can be a data structure literal containing symbols [or just a single symbol] that get bound to the respective parts of the init-expr.
a is always a symbol, independently of the value bound to it (whether it's a function or a number or anything else)
There's a previous answer on Clojure symbols that may clarify things a little bit more here: Symbols in Clojure
And remember symbols are not the same thing as vars
I think the question mixed up two things, or at least didn't make it clear that they're different.
As the other answers so far indicated, "a" is a symbol, which evaluates to something else. So when we talk about a, we could mean the symbol, or the something else. And we could even mean the var that is an intermediary between the symbols and the something else. (See the page linked by Guillermo Winkler for more on the var/symbol relationship, which I'll leave in the background.)
A symbol is never a function, but it can have a function as its value. When you call a function, you are just using its value in a special way. You can even set the values of built-in functions to other values:
(def + -)
WARNING: + already refers to: #'clojure.core/+ in namespace: user, being replaced by: #'user/+
#'user/+
user=> (+ 5 2)
3
user=> (def - "This used to be the minus function")
WARNING: - already refers to: #'clojure.core/- in namespace: user, being replaced by: #'user/-
#'user/-
user=> -
"This used to be the minus function"
I gave + the value of -, and then made -'s value a string. (Yes, there were warnings, but it worked.) The fact that functions are just values of symbols is a way in which Clojure differs from many other languages. (Scheme is similar. Common Lisp is similar, but in a more complicated way.)
So the symbol is just the symbol. And it usually has a value, which may be a function, or a number, or a string, or a keyword, or anything that can be a value in Clojure--vectors, lazy sequences, lists (which may be Clojure code), or even another symbol (even the same one: (def a 'a).) You could call some of these things data if that's useful in a particular context. It's sometimes reasonable to describe functions as data in Clojure.
(def add-fns [#(+ 1 %) #(+ 2 %) #(+ 3 %)]) ;=> #'user/add-fns
add-fns ;=> [#object[user$fn__1178 0x71784911 "user$fn__1178@71784911"] #object[user$fn__1180 0x45ed957d "user$fn__1180@45ed957d"] #object[user$fn__1182 0x7838c8c5 "user$fn__1182@7838c8c5"]]
add-fns is a vector of functions. What should we call the functions that are elements of the vector? Aren't they data in some sense, if we use them like data? We can map a function over them, or reorder them, for example:
(map #(% 10) add-fns) ;=> (11 12 13)
(map #(% 10) (reverse add-fns)) ;=> (13 12 11)
Each of those expressions takes each function in add-fns and calls it with 10 as its argument, returning the results in a sequence.
Exception: macros don't follow the same rules:
user=> and
CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't take value of a macro: ...
Some of the Java interop tricks don't follow the same rules, either.
