This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2019-05-09
Channels
- # announcements (12)
- # beginners (159)
- # boot (3)
- # calva (41)
- # cider (48)
- # clara (2)
- # clj-kondo (8)
- # cljdoc (8)
- # clojure (70)
- # clojure-dev (10)
- # clojure-europe (2)
- # clojure-losangeles (1)
- # clojure-nl (12)
- # clojure-spec (7)
- # clojure-uk (63)
- # clojurescript (24)
- # cursive (24)
- # datomic (22)
- # expound (17)
- # figwheel (1)
- # fulcro (176)
- # graphql (23)
- # jobs (9)
- # jobs-discuss (56)
- # kaocha (1)
- # mount (3)
- # nyc (1)
- # off-topic (91)
- # onyx (3)
- # overtone (4)
- # pathom (3)
- # pedestal (1)
- # re-frame (11)
- # reitit (19)
- # ring (8)
- # shadow-cljs (16)
- # test-check (5)
- # testing (2)
- # tools-deps (20)
- # vim (9)
I'm thinking I may like to express a part of my system as a list (of maps) that gets turned into rules dynamically. However, I'd still need to express part of the LHS conditions in this list. The examples I saw suggested that I should produce the data structure as if the macros had been run. Is this a bad use case for rule generation, as I'd somehow need to transform these partial conditions and inject into final form?
The API constraint is that mk-session needs to receive unevaluated code in the same format that the defrule and defmacro macros construct. I’ve worked on cases where the rules were generated from a DSL that had quite a bit of processing into Clara rule forms, so what you’re suggesting sounds plausible.