m,mnbvnmjkjhghjiu6786§1q>qweewaASDRTYUIOPŨ

’-.,.-

¨ÅP

’-ÄÅÄÖ_PLÖ.,§§§1´

On the Internet, sometimes people do know when you’re a cat.

We just had an interesting discussion surface while doing pull request reviews. A clean-up of our code was proposed to remove named functions, (fn some-name []...) , when technically not needed. However, these were originally added with this advise in mind: https://github.com/day8/re-frame/blob/master/docs/Debugging.md#say-no-to-anonymous Any opinions? "To Anonymous, or Not To Anonymous"

@gchewie it just seems like bad advice to me

not using anon fns blankly is not idiomatic

I'm relatively new to the game, so I didn't have any skin in the game, but I agree that it didn't seem to track with almost every example I've seen for use of (fn..).

It seems to me to be your usual "practical vs idiomatic" debate. Re-frame advice may be good in the particular context of Reagent components, that's it.

that's what I'm saying don't generalize that advice

if you took that advice and started naming all anon-fns you've gone wrong

if you're just doing that for Re-frame handlers then that might help you use Re-frame

and I don't have any opinions about that

Does it really help stack tracing that much? Usually I just look for the function+line that created the anonymous function in the first place, not the anonymous function.

it can help in some JS environments

there's no standard about stacktraces

On the other hand, I haven't had to deal with a whole lot of ClojureScript stack traces yet, I've mostly been using Clojure, and have only begun to start learning ClojureScript.

has anybody used recurly inside a re-frame application? if so, is there an easy-ish way to do it?