In news that should surprise no one: our full test suite passes on Beta 8 (I
meant to post that yesterday afternoon but got distracted).
Sean Corfield -- (970) FOR-SEAN -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
--
Absolutely not trying to propel this discussion forward, but *ackchyually *even
with the given semantics ("async-require should be used in asynchronous
code"), the better word would be "concurrent" or "multithreaded".
But I certainly didn't intend this thread to unwind so much and take away
ve thought
>>>> about the name and won’t entertain changes”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It’s for safely doing requires in asynchronous (multi-threaded) code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sean Corfield
Geez, man, relax and have a drumstick. The audience for this is, I expect,
small. Over time we expect to monkey with the internals of require itself, and
this will basically become deprecated, but that was too much for this point in
1.10.
Also, please note that the other two parts of this beta
gt;> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
>>> -- Margaret Atwood
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* clojure@googlegroups.com on behalf
>>> of Alex Miller
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, Nove
ying somebody, you're not really alive."
>> -- Margaret Atwood
>>
>>
>> --------------
>> *From:* clojure@googlegroups.com on behalf of
>> Alex Miller
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2018 9:54:28 AM
>> *To:* clojure@googlegroups.com
Wednesday, November 21, 2018 9:54:28 AM
> *To:* clojure@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [ANN] Clojure 1.10.0-beta8
>
> We’re good with the name. The docstring exists for further explanation.
>
> On Nov 21, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Alexander Yakushev
> wrote:
>
> Could I
o: clojure@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ANN] Clojure 1.10.0-beta8
We’re good with the name. The docstring exists for further explanation.
On Nov 21, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Alexander Yakushev
mailto:unlo...@bytopia.org>> wrote:
Could I suggest bikeshedding on the name async-require? Before I've see
We’re good with the name. The docstring exists for further explanation.
> On Nov 21, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Alexander Yakushev wrote:
>
> Could I suggest bikeshedding on the name async-require? Before I've seen the
> patch, my initial impression was that it loads namespaces asynchronously
> (that
Could I suggest bikeshedding on the name async-require? Before I've seen
the patch, my initial impression was that it loads namespaces
asynchronously (that is, returns control immediately and loads them in the
background). It might be somewhat confusing that a function async-require
is
10 matches
Mail list logo
