Clojurians Log v2

In what circumstances would you possibly want to apply a getter like that?

users inputs a JSON payload and writes a JSON pointer then call (apply unchecked-get (js/JSON.parse json-input) (parse-json-pointer pointer-input))

I don't understand. Does parse-json-pointer return a collection of keys? Do you expect an object getter to work like get-in but without an extra vector?

I'd go for unchecked-get . You could do this:

cljs.user=> (js/Reflect.get #js {:a 1} "a")
1

If you (for some reason) need unchecked-get with apply, just wrap it in a function

o wait, that doesn't work since the field must be known at compile time

by "function treatment" I mean adding a defn unchecked-get to cljs.core CLJS side, which then just delegates to the macro. just so that apply works. the macro stays as is. this trick is used many more times in cljs.core

I was wrong about compile time, this just works:

cljs.user=> (defn ah-get [obj fld] (unchecked-get obj fld))
#'cljs.user/ah-get
cljs.user=> (ah-get #js {:a 1} "a")
1

@p-himik yes. but I'm thinking in "work the same as aget but objects" @borkdude I'm currently using this.

and don't use Reflect. thing[foo] is perfectly fine to do in JS and that is what unchecked-get provides

> I'm thinking in "work the same as aget but objects" aget is a macro though. :)

try (str aset) and you'll see there is a runtime function for it as well

aget is also a function, which is the trick I'm referring to ...

Ah, shoot, right.

Still get occasionally burned by the fact that CLJS is in both .cljs and .cljc when reading the code.

Yes, it is a https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/blob/v1.11/src/main/clojure/cljs/core.cljc#L1012 and a https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/blob/v1.11/src/main/cljs/cljs/core.cljs#L504

small note: Post announces 1.11.132 but lists contributors as having contributed to 1.11.51

fixed thanks 🙏🏽

small typo in "Note that Google stopped provided regular releases many years ago"

similarly, > Google is not going to remove Google Closure Library (GCL) or remove the API docs or doing anything that would be detrimental to ClojureScript. should be revised like so > Google is not going to remove Google Closure Library (GCL), remove the API docs, or do anything that would be detrimental to ClojureScript.

thanks! fixed