This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2020-10-08
Channels
- # announcements (10)
- # babashka (4)
- # beginners (98)
- # cider (47)
- # clara (6)
- # clj-kondo (16)
- # clojure (54)
- # clojure-australia (3)
- # clojure-berlin (3)
- # clojure-czech (2)
- # clojure-europe (77)
- # clojure-nl (4)
- # clojure-uk (12)
- # clojuredesign-podcast (6)
- # clojurescript (10)
- # conjure (56)
- # cursive (3)
- # data-science (6)
- # datascript (8)
- # datomic (213)
- # depstar (5)
- # events (1)
- # figwheel-main (2)
- # fulcro (23)
- # graalvm (2)
- # jobs (3)
- # london-clojurians (1)
- # malli (30)
- # meander (15)
- # midje (1)
- # mount (5)
- # off-topic (18)
- # re-frame (4)
- # reitit (15)
- # remote-jobs (1)
- # shadow-cljs (23)
- # spacemacs (10)
- # specter (1)
- # tools-deps (88)
- # vim (16)
- # xtdb (1)
Is there a technical reason why tests are not included in boolean expressions?
Maybe because the variables have to be bound before executing the test?
As you mentioned, test conditions allow a fact-binding to be bound before evaluation. My go-to example would be checking the result of an accumulator
Looking at output of clara.rules.inspect
... just wondering, when using inspect
on a session, what is the difference in the contents of the :condition-matches
vs the :insertions
. They seem to have pretty much the same information, but granted, I am just using a single rule and single insertion and trying to inspect the output to figure out what inspect
can tell me, and how, at the moment...
I believe that the :condition-matches
is meant to capture/explain join nodes, where :insertions
should contain what facts were inserted and why they were inserted i believe
It looks like :condition-matches
will also show the unconditional inserts (like the initial facts loaded to a session)... does that seem right?