Ah yes, macros… That can throw a wrench in things b/c your source code and the
compiled code no longer bear much resemblance to each other L
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
It doesn't, really, because you can't tell how nested functions are in
clojure due to all the macros. In my code it wasn't nested at all, but I
see now that defmethod and core.match added nested anonymous functions.
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 4:32:51 PM UTC-8, Sean Corfield wrote:
>
> How
How big a piece of code is clojure.something100/foo ?
That sort of name indicates nested anonymous functions inside foo, nested three
deep in this case. That should narrow it down quite a bit.
(if you give us real names, that might help, especially if it’s in a well-known
third party
This is in a profiler, not a repl: visualvm. If there's a way to make
visualvm aware of clojure fns, I'll be very happy.
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:52:38 PM UTC-8, Ghadi Shayban wrote:
>
> The stacktrace should be pointing to the correct file & line number -- no
> need to reverse
The stacktrace should be pointing to the correct file & line number -- no
need to reverse engineer the mangling. If it's not for some reason, file a
bug. (It's helpful to eliminate nREPL / lein middleware in case something
is transforming the printing of traces)
If you are missing a trace
Well, a truly painful way is to dump the const__ fields on the class,
which appear to be values in the closure, from which the function might be
inferred.
Like
(. foo$fn__7840$fn__7846$fn__7847 const__0)
(. foo$fn__7840$fn__7846$fn__7847 const__1)
...
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:25:24
Yes, but not very practical: since I don't know which one to change, this
would be a huge rewrite of code to eliminate #() and (fn []).
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-8, Alex Engelberg wrote:
>
> If you're seeing "fn_123", it's probably coming from an anonymous
> function.
If you're seeing "fn_123", it's probably coming from an anonymous function.
Giving those functions a name with the (fn my-name [] ...) syntax will make
the stack trace a little easier to decipher:
user=> ((fn [] (/ 1 0)))
ArithmeticException Divide by zero clojure.lang.Numbers.divide
Trying to profile some code, and the stack traces look like
clojure.something0
clojure.something1
clojure.something2
clojure.something100
foo$fn_1000$fn_1002$fn_10003.invoke()
How can I figure out what that last function is? I can access the symbol
from the repl,
