Fork me on GitHub
Michaël Salihi12:12:36

Hi @jr0cket Today, you closed one Cider Github issue: > I am no longer using cider-jack-in with Clojure CLI tools so will close this issue I'm curious, can I ask you what's your new approch now?


I can't answer this question, but my own anecdotal experience says a lot of people are starting an nrepl on their own and then using cider-connect

Michaël Salihi15:12:34

Thx @U0P7ZBZCK. What's the reason for? Do you think for more controls? For the moment and in my experience, I'm happy with cider-jack-in


> Do you think for more controls? Yes, over the middleware and start-up/setup so when they connect again everything is how they left it > I'm happy with `cider-jack-in` Same

👍 1

I guess the main problem for most people using the Clojure CLI is that they also using some aliases in their projects that CIDER obviously doesn't know about and they have to tweak the jack-in command manually. And if they happen to have another alias with a main in it, nothing good comes out of this. 🙂


cider-jack-in certainly produces better results out of the box for Lein and Boot, but that's not surprising as it was created with them and in mind, and the Clojure CLI support was just adapted to what we have. I'm still using Lein all the time, so I'm far from being an expert on the all the way people are using the Clojure CLI.

Michaël Salihi10:12:40

For me and since I begin with Clojure only for two years, I use both but 80% of time Clojure CLI, I I'm not part of the era where only Leiningen /Bootreigned 🙂 Perfect, thx @U051BLM8F for this clarifications, I better understand now. BTW thx for Cider, Projectile, and so on and on... 🙏

Kevin F16:12:43

Any chance there’s a way to display the output of each form in a thread? For example something that produced comments like these:

(->> [2 1 3]
     (reverse) ;; => (3 1 2)
     (sort))   ;; => (1 2 3)

Michaël Salihi17:12:49

@kevin586 Not exactly the solution you ask for, but did you tried cider-debug-defun-at-point?

Kevin F18:12:32

Yeah! The debugger is what I’m using currently, there’s just times where I forget what the output of the previous form (i.e. the output to the current form) was and would like to see it again

Kevin F18:12:03

Looks like the feature is along the lines of what I’d be interested in but it applies to functions called as opposed to forms in the thread

Michaël Salihi18:12:53

By the way, very nice feature Enlighten! I had seen in video presentation but forgot it, thanks for the reminder. :) For your request, I don't know if it's possible. Anyone else with the answer?


It's possible in theory, but it's not currently possible (in the sense that such a feature doesn't exist).


You can use eval-up-to-point to get the result of some specific part of the threading macro, though.

Michaël Salihi22:12:22

Never used eval-up-to-point before, it's nice! Thanks for the advice. 👍 @kevin586 With the argument, you can print the result in the current buffer, so then it can be a solution to manually comment the result in order to keep it and not to forget the output as you mention above.

Kevin F22:12:18

Awesome, wasn’t familiar with the up-to-point functions, will check them out, thanks!

Michaël Salihi22:12:55

it does the trick. 👍

Michaël Salihi22:12:40

Notice that you can omit parentheses when functions in a thread macro have no arguments.