Clojurians
#cljs-dev
<
2017-09-08
>

This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.

juhoteperi14:09:34

Huh, this inferrred extern problem is strange: https://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJS-2347

juhoteperi14:09:04

I haven't been able to reproduce it without boot-cljs, but if I provide extern with line var COMPILED; I get the same exception with just Cljs compiler

john16:09:10

looks like the latest alpha 20's ## reader breaks CLJS https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/IB2CaORBMnM/10gbiiHUDAAJ

anmonteiro16:09:07

@john probably until tools.reader gets updated and released

favila16:09:35

Anyone know if Infinity, NaN etc special symbols will stop working without ## reader?

dnolen16:09:01

@john I don’t really understand that report, since it doesn’t demonstrate how to reproduce

favila16:09:04

@dnolen I imagine (def x [NaN]) would do it?

favila16:09:16

or a macro in clj space could emit a non-finite double value

john16:09:45

Yeah, the report is fairly lacking

alexmiller17:09:34

that functionality was always speculative (imo should not have been in tools.reader)

dnolen17:09:43

@dpsutton that also isn’t telling me anything interesting :slightly_smiling_face:

dnolen17:09:43

oh ok, I guess the original report was probably saying [NaN NaN] is now maybe problematic.

dnolen17:09:06

but [js/NaN js/NaN] will probably work

alexmiller17:09:11

there was an older patch on the CLJ-1074 ticket that speculatively introduced new special symbols Inf, -Inf, NaN. That was speculatively implemented in tools.reader, so probably worked in CLJS.

dnolen17:09:17

based on what @alexmiller has said this sounds like a bug in tools.reader

alexmiller17:09:44

The approach ultimately implemented for CLJ-1074 was to introduce new dispatch character and to use ##Inf, ##-Inf, ##NaN

alexmiller17:09:08

for portability, I’d say CLJS should use those (and NOT use Inf, -Inf, NaN)

dnolen17:09:17

absolutely

dpsutton17:09:56

didn't mean to clutter. thought that patch might be relevant is all :slightly_smiling_face:

dominicm18:09:54

I didn't understand why this patch was rejected based on the comments. Is there somewhere for me to learn?

alexmiller18:09:41

you mean the older patch on CLJ-1074?

dominicm19:09:18

I didn't understand what would break

alexmiller19:09:13

I don’t think there was anything broken with it, just Rich decided it was better not to create any more “special” symbol values. The only three that exist in Clojure now are true, false, and nil.