This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2022-04-29
Channels
- # announcements (1)
- # babashka (15)
- # beginners (37)
- # calva (94)
- # cider (3)
- # clj-kondo (17)
- # cljsrn (2)
- # clojure (45)
- # clojure-europe (39)
- # clojure-germany (1)
- # clojure-norway (2)
- # clojurescript (16)
- # component (18)
- # conjure (1)
- # cursive (13)
- # datalevin (3)
- # datomic (12)
- # docker (2)
- # duct (5)
- # eastwood (2)
- # emacs (4)
- # events (8)
- # fulcro (8)
- # inf-clojure (5)
- # kaocha (8)
- # lsp (24)
- # malli (11)
- # meander (3)
- # off-topic (19)
- # polylith (11)
- # remote-jobs (4)
- # sci (61)
- # shadow-cljs (9)
- # spacemacs (34)
- # sql (10)
- # tools-deps (27)
- # xtdb (10)
here's a weird one: this is tickling :redundant-do
despite having two things in it at least in CLJ mode https://github.com/metabase/metabase/blob/master/shared/src/metabase/mbql/util.cljc#L672-L676
@braden.shepherdson cljc files are linted twice, once for each language context
sure, that makes sense. but I'd argue a do
is only redundant if it's not needed in any language.
yeah, that works. thanks for the prompt reply.
(and some-var)
throws a single-logical-operand
warning (which I just realized is undocumented). How would you feel about a similar check for (-> some-var)
and (->> some-var)
?
could work. we could call it :redundant-call
or something: a call which just returns its argument
this may be specific enough to be named :redundant-threading
?
maybe :redundant-thread
is simpler
I suggested that, but it might be confusing since it could also mean (Thread. (fn []))
humm, makes sense
although, is that (Thread. (fn []))
ever to be considered a redundant thread?
overloading of names, always fun 😛
https://github.com/clj-kondo/clj-kondo/pull/1692 here's my attempt at this lint