Clojurians Log v2
Clojure programming
Channels
Apps
cljs-dev
borkdude 2024-10-14T15:28:28.756949Z
In reaction to clojure 1.12, I guess something like this would be pretty neat:
(map .-value [#js {:value 1}]).-value isn't fully qualified, it wouldn't be exactly according to 1.12's example. Still, perhaps worth considering? Perhaps would cause trouble with extern inference?
p-himik 2024-10-14T15:30:55.244479Z
A compliant version, at least in terms of reading: js/.-value.
dnolen 2024-10-15T19:34:30.123229Z
I think people are still generally confused about .- which requires understanding advanced compilation - so I am not sure about the utility of this one.
borkdude 2024-10-14T15:34:56.234939Z
.-value is already readable
borkdude 2024-10-14T15:36:32.204679Z
perhaps (map ^js .-value [#js {:value 1}]) would be necessary for inference
p-himik 2024-10-14T15:41:20.933259Z
Yes, but: > Symbols beginning or ending with '.' are reserved by Clojure. Although I don't know whether that means simple or fully qualified names.
p-himik 2024-10-14T15:42:04.639839Z
Well, given that simple names starting with dots can now be used by users of Clojure 1.12, I guess it's about FQNs..?
p-himik 2024-10-14T15:42:12.016369Z
Or maybe that's exactly what "reserved" meant.
borkdude 2024-10-14T15:42:14.983729Z
I interpret that as reserved for the language implementor ;)
👍 2