consider this (incomplete, I know) javascript snippet:

how do I get access to the javascript this inside that function when writing this from clojurescript?

(fn [] (this-as anyting (.. anything -prop1 -prop2)))

this-as binds the JS this to the specified symbol

Me, upon reading this:

why are keyword qualifiers disallowed in #js {}?

$ planck 
ClojureScript 1.10.339
cljs.user=> #js {:foo/bar 1}
JavaScript literal keys must be strings or unqualified keywords.

https://ask.clojure.org/index.php/8444/why-are-keyword-qualifiers-disallowed-in-js

@misha it's just not supported and it isn't going to be

you're not making maps

you're making JS literals

so little value in keyword stuff

#js {:foo 1} is identical to #js {"foo" 1}

there are no keywords

I was thinking about dev time "support", like using qualifiers to aid autocomplete, and narrow down keys set for a particular js obj I might build. So in source code it'd be e.g.`#js {:css/width 10}` and in js, ofc {"width": 10}

like I said there are no keywords, just strings

introducing namespacing brings along other expectations

well, allowing keywords there brought along my expectation :)

keywords aren't allowed

it's just a syntactical thing

cljs.user=> #js {:bar 1}
#js {:bar 1}

I already explained this above

no keywords

when this was originally done as a surface syntax it was only for the convenience of saving a character

well, yes, I understand, that in js obj it'll be string. but I type in keyword on keyboard.

i.e. #js {"bar" ...}

@misha but you're misunderstand what I'm saying

real keywords do a bunch of things

I'm very glad that convenience is there

and have a lot of semantics

bringing anymore stuff just into #js isn't desirable

and your confusion shows that saving a keystroke was probably questionable design idea from one perspective

anyways - no changes coming here - what's there is what's there

I would not say I am confused. It just seems to me that what I ask is the same as saving 1 char. I do not expect any qualified keyword semantics to get transferred to js obj. What I'm saying, is "there is a value in typing in qualified keyword because of IDE suggests assists" the same way there is a value in "saving a char" which is already there.

I understand quite clearly what you're saying, but I'm also explaining why it isn't a good idea

and I'm not asking for change. just wondering why that was explicitly prohibited.

I already explained that ^

you did, thank you

@misha one typical read time thing that people might expect if you allow this is namespace aliasing

#js {::foo/bar ...}

no interest in supporting stuff like this

that is what you're proposing opens more questions

yeah, that's a very good example. thank you

In the middle of Uncle Bob's latest blog post about Clojure, there's a cool bit about ClojureScript. http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/08/22/WhyClojure.html > ClojureScript and ran in the Browser at even higher frame-rates He's referring to http://spacewar.fikesfarm.com 🙂

Preparing to the meeting next week, with @jsa-aerial 's talk about interactive data visualization and literate programming with Hanami&Saite: https://twitter.com/scicloj/status/1164887113680281600