This issue from David Nolen, caught my eye:
https://github.com/andrewmcveigh/cljs-time/issues/21
Feels like there is important information there, but I just don't know enough
to interpret what's said. Can anyone help?
If I have this:
(def x {:a 1 :b 2})
David is saying that x can't be dead-code-eliminated. Correct?
If so, the solution he talks about is?
;; Replacing PersistentHashMaps with functions? Can't be right. I think I'm
being too literal here
(def x ((fn [] {:a 1 :b2})))
;; more likely this?
(defn x
[]
{:a 1 :b 2})
Ie. you must now "call" x to get the map.
If this solution is the right one, doesn't that mean we would be inefficiently
constructing the (potentially large) hashmap inside x on each call.
--
Mike
--
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ClojureScript" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
