Both piggieback and weasel unfortunately tapped into undiscussed details. piggieback's design is fundamentally flawed (being constructed on flawed implementation details of the standard REPL infrastructure which have since changed) and I would personally be happy to see piggieback eventually disappear. weasel has been refactored to work correctly after the maintainer reviewed this document which I wrote: https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Custom-REPLs
Anyways I've personally submitted fixes to both piggieback and weasel some time ago, SNAPSHOT releases of both work with the latest ClojureScript as far as I'm aware. David On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Leon Grapenthin <[email protected]> wrote: > If it helps: I am getting a similar error ( goog.require could not find: > cljsjs.react when trying to compile a namespace via weasel-5.0.0 and > piggieback... > > On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 7:47:12 PM UTC+1, Fluid Dynamics wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:06:31 PM UTC-4, David Nolen wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Fluid Dynamics <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 11:23:14 AM UTC-4, David Nolen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Need more information. But that warning is most certainly not >>>>> something emitted by the ClojureScript compiler. >>>>> >>>>> Make sure you can reproduce without whatever downstream tooling you >>>>> may be using: https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Reporti >>>>> ng-Issues >>>>> >>>>> There's a good chance it's purely downstream and needs to be reported >>>>> elsewhere. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The only thing the OP changed was the version of cljs he was using, and >>>> his project went from working to broken. This means that one of the changes >>>> in the new cljs broke something. Whether it directly broke the OP's code, >>>> or broke a library that the OP's project depends on, is immaterial; the >>>> location of the breaking change was in cljs itself >>>> >>> >>> No. >>> >> >> "No"? Are you *denying* that the breaking change was in cljs itself, even >> though the OP says that's *the only thing changed* between a working and a >> non-working configuration? >> >> >>> A surprising amount of downstream tooling relies on unpublished and >>> undocumented details of the ClojureScript compiler. >>> >> >> If that is true, then it is a problem, indicative either of a widespread >> lack of discipline among the tool makers or (more likely) a strong need for >> some additional well-specified (and maintained!) APIs in the compiler for >> tools to hook into. >> >> -- > 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. > -- 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.
