Thank you Mr. Alex Miller!
Fancy printing of exceptions is working :)
Geraldo
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 4:26:30 PM UTC-3, Alex Miller wrote:
Clojure 1.7.0-beta1 is now available.
Try it via
- Download:
https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/clojure/clojure/1.7.0-beta1/
- Leiningen:
Just tried the beta on our test suite. Aside from warnings from new
Clojure functions now shadowed by existing functions and obvious cases of
hash sensitivity, there are a couple less clear-cut cases (which likely
fall into the above hash case but will require further investigation), and
we
Hi,
Fancy printing is not working.
Geraldo
--
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
Thank you ! We live inside our heads but we expend much time inside repl.
This is very much appreciated!
Geraldo
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 2:56:44 PM UTC-3, Alex Miller wrote:
Well, we never added fancy printing, just data printing of Throwables.
:)
But we were working on this in
Well, we never added fancy printing, just data printing of Throwables. :)
But we were working on this in the context of another thing that got moved
out and I have pulled that back as a separate ticket:
http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1703
Haven't talked to Rich about it yet, but
On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Geraldo Lopes de Souza geraldo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thank you ! We live inside our heads but we expend much time inside repl.
FWIW, I find `pst` more useful there:
user= (/ 1 0)
ArithmeticException Divide by zero clojure.lang.Numbers.divide
(Numbers.java:158)
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 4:48:28 PM UTC+3, Alex Miller wrote:
I think what you're seeing here makes sense.
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 3:39:15 PM UTC-5, whodidthis wrote:
Are there any thoughts on code like this:
#_
This says to ignore the next read form
#?(:cljs (def
Your particular example is equivalent to #?(:clj) which is illegal, for the
reason given in the error message you saw.
Normal Clojure comments are far less surprising in their behavior than #_ is
I understand there can be convenience in using #_ when it works.
Andy
Sent from my iPhone
On
Why not just change the `?' to `_'? ?
So:
#?(:cljs (def unrelated-1 nil))
then
#_(:cljs (def unrelated-1 nil))
Even saved a character :)
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 3:38:01 PM UTC-4, whodidthis wrote:
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 4:48:28 PM UTC+3, Alex Miller wrote:
I think what you're
Just noticed that I sent my previous email to clojure-dev only – reposting
to all groups involved:
On 13 April 2015 at 16:25, Michał Marczyk michal.marc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 April 2015 at 15:48, Alex Miller a...@puredanger.com wrote:
To get the effect you want in this, using #_ *inside*
Hmm... In Clojurescript you can do the following
(try
;; throw something
(catch :default e
e))
When I try the same thing in Clojure, it seems to not be supported. Is
there any plans to support this syntax in Clojure 1.7?
--
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be
Why would that be fine?
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 10:39:17 PM UTC+2, whodidthis wrote:
Are there any thoughts on code like this:
#_#?(:cljs (def unrelated-1 nil))
#?(:cljs (def unrelated-2 nil))
#?(:cljs (def unrelated-3 nil))
#?(:clj (def n 10))
#?(:clj (defn num []
The only reason :default exists is because *anything* in JavaScript can be
thrown and there needs to be some way to catch non-Error derived values.
This is not the case for Java of course. :default could probably be aliased
to Throwable, but in the meantime differences like this are now handleable
Ahh ok, makes sense.
mandag 13. april 2015 12.45.35 UTC+2 skrev David Nolen følgende:
The only reason :default exists is because *anything* in JavaScript can be
thrown and there needs to be some way to catch non-Error derived values.
This is not the case for Java of course. :default could
There is a ticket to consider a portable solution to this issue:
http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1293
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 5:45:35 AM UTC-5, David Nolen wrote:
The only reason :default exists is because *anything* in JavaScript can be
thrown and there needs to be some way to
I think what you're seeing here makes sense.
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 3:39:15 PM UTC-5, whodidthis wrote:
Are there any thoughts on code like this:
#_
This says to ignore the next read form
#?(:cljs (def unrelated-1 nil))
This evaluates to *nothing*, ie nothing is read, so it
Sounds like you guys have it figured out; conditional reading forms cannot
be ignored, only their results.
Just wanted to make sure, had some bad times with it heh
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 4:48:28 PM UTC+3, Alex Miller wrote:
I think what you're seeing here makes sense.
On Sunday, April
Ouch! But that actually makes a lot of sense.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:58 Alex Miller a...@puredanger.com wrote:
There is a ticket to consider a portable solution to this issue:
http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1293
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 5:45:35 AM UTC-5, David Nolen wrote:
18 matches
Mail list logo
