Re: Issue when moving to Clojure 1.10

> > I think the key is that if you are going to AOT, then everything you > depend on should be AOTed. The ideal place to do this is when you build the > final application - uberjar and aot the world. To do so, it’s best if libs > never AOT to give app compilers the opportunity to do so. > The

Re: Noob question on the --> macro implementation

There's probably also a difference in what happens if the form is empty. The current impl results in a compile error about calling nil, whereas the suggested implementation would result in calling the current thread value as a function, I think. On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 5:13:23 PM

RE: r/fold combinef and reducef init values

Ah, yes… So this line… The reducef function will be called with no arguments to produce an identity value in each partition. …needs updating/removing. Sean Corfield -- (970) FOR-SEAN -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not

RE: Noob question on the --> macro implementation

I suspect it’s done for consistency with the source of -> (which has to use first/next because it threads the expression between them) – using first/next/x in ->> is therefore a closer parallel to using first/x/next in -> so it’s easier to see the similarity (and correctness) of the code. Sean

RE: Issue when moving to Clojure 1.10

2) Library B must be AOTed due to a gen-class, but depends on Clojure 1.9 My approach is to isolate the pieces that need to be AOT compiled to as few namespaces as possible and have them only depend on other namespaces at runtime, i.e., avoid :require in the ns clause where possible and use

partition & fold

Still trying to understand reducers & transducers. Is the difference between r/folder and r/reducer the parallelization? Anyone know what this error is about? (r/foldcat (r/map #(apply + %) (r/folder (into [] (range 1000)) (partition-all 5 ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException 47427

Re: r/fold combinef and reducef init values

hey Sean -- The ones on the reducers reference page: https://clojure.org/reference/reducers On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:05:12 PM UTC-8, Sean Corfield wrote: > Which docs are you reading? The docstring for r/fold says this – with no > indication of calling (reducef) with no arguments

Re: Noob question on the --> macro implementation

I believe he's just saying it's simpler and possibly more efficient. Unless I'm missing something subtle in the way this is resolved, I believe Ujjwal is right that: `(~(first form) ~@(next form) ~x) Is equivalent to: `(~@form ~x) On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 19:04, Andy Fingerhut wrote:

Re: Noob question on the --> macro implementation

When you ask "am I right?" about your proposed change, what is it that the current behavior does not do, that your change would do? Do you have some use case in mind that works with your change, but doesn't with the current implementation? Andy On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 10:50 AM Ujjwal Thaakar

Noob question on the --> macro implementation

Hi, I'm trying to learn Clojure and I just curiously typed (source ->>) in the REPL and was wondering about this: https://github.com/clojure/clojure/commit/749a0ad8b66c781d8176833f0ad26cfe6b9b24e3#r32075784 Am I missing something? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

[ANN] com.cognitect.aws/api-0.8.223

com.cognitect.aws/api-0.8.223 is now available CHANGES - support endpoint-override #43 - parse "map" shapes using their key spec instead of assuming keyword keys #50 -

Re: Issue when moving to Clojure 1.10

> On Jan 26, 2019, at 12:43 AM, Didier wrote: > > Okay, so after reading through the linked issue here: > https://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-322 I'm not sure, as a tool builder, > what is the ideal path forward. > > This is what I seem to understand would be ideal, let me know if I'm