like I said there's so many thing like this

it used be bindings in loops were mutable like JS for at least 6 months or something

so you could have depended on that

when we fixed it was a breaking change?

no

it was a change - if we mark this that's enough

we had a bunch of changes around metadata to align with Clojure - as far as I'm concerned these are bugs

and these are also in the changelog

being in the changelog is more important than opinion about the importance of the change

Perhaps a bigger problem is that the entire News section of the site appears to be gone ¯\(ツ)/¯

I have a vague memory that Alex mentioned some manual stuff going on. Perhaps related.

https://clojurians.slack.com/archives/C07UQ678E/p1544711197158200

Quick Start is up; that's what's important 🙂

we should ping him about that tomorrow

Something need a rebuild?

The ci is dead so will only build if I do it manually

just did a rebuild, let me know if it seems like something is missing or you need a rebuild

The line of thought "it was not like Clojure therefore it is a bug not a breaking change" makes sense imho. If it's already in the changelog I will just shut up and pay more attention to it the next time. I have to say I went to the release notes only and this might have been the wrong piece of info to inspect for that particular problem. We live and learn 😉😉😉

News is appearing again after the rebuild.

Here is a cool example of the appearance of platform-generated JavaScript error types in the improved error messages: Note the appearance of RangeError in the message.

cljs.user=> (defn foo [a b] (map #(vector "1" %) (range a (inc b))))
#'cljs.user/foo
cljs.user=> (foo "2" "8")
Execution error (RangeError) at (<cljs repl>:1).
Array size is not a small enough positive integer.

(Don't be confused by RangeError appearing with the use of range; the real error is deep on the bowels of the system, but nevertheless a useful bit of into in the end.)

I thought: maybe count on range can be optimized, but I noticed it was already done in CLJS 🙂

this one was a bit funny:

(count (range))
1.7976931348623157e+308

Returning ##Inf would also be questionable.

yeah, I’m not suggesting it should be changed

You could argue that there is a bug in that it produces an incorrect result.

start and end are missing in the calculation. maybe it should return ##Hyrum

@mfikes I've generally avoided the JS error types because I haven't looked to see how portable they are

hrm, I guess RangeError is since ECMA-262 3rd ed.

Yeah, InternalError is only on FireFox; non-standard, for example

Maybe cljs.core should generally prefer ex-info

(For exceptions it throws)

My opinion: Don’t change anything now. Just see what this new visibility surfaces.