cljs-dev 2024-05-21 | Slack Archive

souenzzo14:05:18

Hello I think that this issue should be re-opened https://clojure.atlassian.net/browse/CLJS-1670 The current differences page does not include any mention to this difference/limitation https://clojurescript.org/about/differences

mynomoto14:05:21

> Namespaces in ClojureScript are compiled to Google Closure namespaces which are represented as nested JavaScript objects. Importantly this means that namespaces and vars have the potential to clash - however the compiler can detect these problematic cases and will emit a warning when this occurs. First paragraph on https://clojurescript.org/about/differences#_namespaces section.

👍 1

souenzzo14:05:20

i was seeking for "conflict" keyword.

souenzzo14:05:10

On this feature, the design is incomplete? A patch is welcome? https://clojure.atlassian.net/browse/CLJS-3233

dnolen17:05:00

@souenzzo it does mostly work as far as I know as noted by @thheller - I think one design problem is that we’re pretty late in the game - someone might have a single segment namespace called global … I guess we could detect that

dnolen17:05:23

the only thing missing from CLJS-3233 is sugar I think

borkdude17:05:01

So the idea is now: global.foo :refer [bar]? I think globalThis would be less chance of clashing with anything since that is a defined constant in JS environments now

thheller17:05:59

on thought that comes to mind is that we already have the js/ special. we could just transfer (:require [js/some.thing :as x :refer (foo)]). might break some tools and specs so probably not the best idea, but seems nice

👍 1

borkdude17:05:17

yeah or js$some.thing

borkdude17:05:10

or globalThis$some.thing , both ok to me

dnolen18:05:28

js$some.thing is very short and less likely to cause much trouble

👍 1

souenzzo20:05:16

(:require [js/foo.bar :as car]) is pretty awesome. Already solves my problem

borkdude21:05:45

how do you mean "already"? it works with the currently released CLJS?

borkdude21:05:11

as thheller notes, js/... violates the clojure.spec for the ns form currently, therefore js$ might be the way to go (and $ is already an existing convention in CLJS ns form)

thheller04:05:30

agreed, js$ seems fine. close enough to js/ and it is very unlikely anyone has a js namespace, which we than could also ban/warn about

👍 1

dnolen13:05:51

right sorry forgot to clarify js/ is undesirable because it would be something new for the ns form

2024-05-21

Channels