[vijaykiran]

I guess you meant:

  #_((def some-state (create-state))
     (some-fn [1 2 3])
     (do-something some-state))

oh, and you can't have "invalid" code in (comment), but in #_ you can.

[okal]

#_ comments out the form it precedes. You do not need to surround it with an extra pair of parentheses.

Didn't know about the difference in behaviour with regard to invalid code. Thanks for that.

EDIT: Leaving this here for context. I'd missed the fact that they weren't all enclosed in a single form to begin with. Parent's solution is correct in light of that.

[jorams]

What your parent meant is that your #_ only comments out the first form, not the other two. Surrounding them all with an extra pair of parentheses groups them into a single form.

[okal]

Oops! I missed that. I wasn't looking closely enough, so it seemed to me like they were all enclosed in a single form to begin with. Thanks.

[krat0sprakhar]

Yup you're right! I made the same mistake as okal and assumed everything is in one form! Also, I didn't know about the 'invalid' code part - so thanks for that :)