On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Steve Purcell st...@sanityinc.com wrote:
I'll bite:
http://github.com/purcell/swank-clojure
In my master branch (freshly forked from Phil's repo) I've applied Richard's
patch, plus the following recent branches from the swank-clojure network on
github
I had proposed that c.c.sql use c.c.logging, and Steve was ok with
that, but I held off after all the back and forth about logging itself.
I would be just as happy to see no logging no wrapping/throwing at
this level. If you make a patch that does this (and nag me a
little :-) ) I will
On 13 Feb 2010, at 23:22, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
Even without CL experience, just
gathering up the various patches into one branch and seeing what works
and what doesn't would be very helpful too.
I'll bite:
http://github.com/purcell/swank-clojure
In my master branch (freshly forked from
On 14 Feb 2010, at 09:34, Steve Purcell wrote:
In my master branch (freshly forked from Phil's repo) I've applied Richard's
patch, plus the following recent branches from the swank-clojure network on
github (http://github.com/technomancy/swank-clojure/network):
I should add that I skipped
I'm willing to give maintenance of swank-clojure a shot. With one
huge caveat: I'm very new to both clojure and CL, so patience will
have to be practiced as I slowly get up to speed on a new code base in
a new language. Unless anyone with more experience wants to jump in,
I will begin applying
Patching swank might be appropriate but doesn't address several
incorrect assumptions made by c.c.sql:
1) *err* and *out* promise to implement java.io.Writer in the
documentation not java.io.PrintWriter. Calling .println on *out* or
*err* is not appropriate.
2) c.c.sql shouldn't assume that we
Patching swank might be appropriate but doesn't address several
incorrect assumptions made by c.c.sql:
1) *err* and *out* promise to implement java.io.Writer in the
documentation not java.io.PrintWriter. Calling .println on *out* or
*err* is not appropriate.
I started in the same mental
I would like to create a patch to address the issues above and get the
c.c.sql tests running under clojure.test. I should have a patch ready
by the end of the day.
I've just filled out my contributor agreement it'll be in the mail
tomorrow.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are
2) c.c.sql shouldn't assume that we want anything printed at all?!
Just throw the SQLException.
Printing to *err* is acceptable IMO. This is the common should my
library write log messages, and if so how? problem. I'd rather have
it print to *err* than use Java Logging.
Why log
Why log anything at all? The relevant information is (or can be)
stored in the exception. I don't want to see clojure contrib embrace
the catch/log/re-throw idiom. I couldn't find any other code in
contrib that follows this approach.
Ain't my code. I was simply saying I prefer libraries to
1) *err* and *out* promise to implement java.io.Writer in the
documentation not java.io.PrintWriter. Calling .println on *out* or
*err* is not appropriate.
Actually this was the impetus for my change to the swank-clojure. I
still vastly prefer Richards implementation to mine, but I thought
In reference to this thread on the clojure-dev group:
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev/browse_thread/thread/369734ff42cbb06a/cc9e30534c78b6b3?lnk=gstq=sql+println#cc9e30534c78b6b3
Has there been any resolution?
I'm using clojure.contrib.sql and Emacs with clojure-swank. When an
error
The above thread suggests defining *err* as a PrintWriter instead of
as a Writer. Has this been patched, and is it official? If so, I'll
patch clojure-swank to use PrintWriter. If not, I'll patch
clojure.contrib.sql to not use println.
I patched swank-clojure:
diff --git
On 13 Feb 2010, at 19:03, Richard Newman wrote:
The above thread suggests defining *err* as a PrintWriter instead of
as a Writer. Has this been patched, and is it official? If so, I'll
patch clojure-swank to use PrintWriter. If not, I'll patch
clojure.contrib.sql to not use println.
I
14 matches
Mail list logo
