@mfikes minor enhancement to tubular https://github.com/mfikes/tubular/pull/3

@dnolen Thanks! Much simpler. I documented it on the README and pushed tubular 1.3.0 to Clojars.

thanks!

When implements? was added, a consequence was that cljs.core/pr-writer would no longer honor arbitrary extend-type to, say object. (The last change in https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/commit/7d3ce70a1c2f4d54b9044d2e44b62c8252e5dea6) Is this intentional, or was it just an oversight that a fallback that checks satisfies? wasn’t added (perhaps at the end of the cond)?

@mfikes look lower

there’s still a satisfies? check

Hrm. I’m looking here https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/blob/e43c6f7cbe1a2b6cf782f930b12121e1e247538e/src/main/cljs/cljs/core.cljs#L9928-L10016 I may be missing it

Ahh, it was in the older implementation at the time…

@mfikes yes so I think we need to look at why it was removed

Yeah, I’ll see if I can find a relevant commit

oh yeah I remember

because we have default printing for Objects

in general I would consider this a minor thing - we should check to see if this overrideable in Clojure itself

I’m talking about #object[...]

I guess in Clojure you can do

(defmethod print-method Object [o w] (.write w "hi"))

so that works, that replaces the existing printing for Object?

Yeah

user=> (import '( URI))
java.net.URI
user=> (def uri (URI. "x"))
#'user/uri
user=> uri
#object[java.net.URI 0x48d5f34e "x"]
user=> (defmethod print-method Object [o w] (.write w "hi"))
hi
user=> uri
hi

ok then that was probably my fault

yeah we need to check to see if some has implemented the override before the final case

Testing it is annoying - since it affects how objects print - I might skip that?

OK, I’ll at least write a low-priority JIRA for now with some notes

We have the cljs.extend-to-object-test namespace that is specifically tested last, so we might even be able to have tests

https://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJS-2812

I’ll put together a small patch for this for people to try.

cool, thanks