Fork me on GitHub
#clojure-dev
<
2018-11-21
>
bronsa14:11:12

@alexmiller re: https://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1326, the selected method in the example was not really the point, if you do any interop over literal collections you'll get the same behavior

bronsa14:11:55

for example interop for the java.util.Collection methods which the clojure collections are documented to implement (https://clojure.org/reference/data_structures)

mpenet14:11:57

Just wondering, about the naming for async-require, since it's basically require+locking, wouldn't another name be more appropriate?

👍 3
bronsa14:11:58

I'll leave a comment

mpenet14:11:30

async-foo tends to suggest something is done asynchronously, I'd argue sync-require would be more appropriate actually, but that's just me

☝️ 3
bronsa14:11:35

surprisingly

user=> (instance? java.util.Collection {})
false

bronsa14:11:21

seems like maps don't implement j.u.C, possibly an oversight but that goes against the docs, I'll make a ticket about it

alexmiller14:11:49

Java collections do not include maps

alexmiller14:11:51

so that’s normal

alexmiller14:11:59

Map is a separate hierarchy

bronsa14:11:11

well then the docs are incorrect

bronsa14:11:36

>In addition, the collections: >Implement the non-optional (read-only) portion of java.util.Collection

alexmiller14:11:50

then yes, I’d say that’s incomplete

alexmiller14:11:03

I would add “or java.util.Map”

bronsa14:11:51

I've reworded the ticket to suggest the docs might be incomplete instead of the impl being incorrect

alexmiller15:11:31

docs updated, ticket closed