This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2017-02-01
Channels
- # aleph (71)
- # aws (1)
- # bangalore-clj (4)
- # beginners (36)
- # boot (153)
- # cider (23)
- # clara (9)
- # cljs-dev (67)
- # cljsjs (2)
- # cljsrn (22)
- # clojure (348)
- # clojure-argentina (4)
- # clojure-austin (12)
- # clojure-berlin (9)
- # clojure-dusseldorf (6)
- # clojure-france (4)
- # clojure-italy (4)
- # clojure-russia (358)
- # clojure-spain (2)
- # clojure-spec (28)
- # clojure-uk (109)
- # clojurescript (130)
- # core-typed (1)
- # cursive (35)
- # datascript (6)
- # datomic (18)
- # emacs (12)
- # hoplon (4)
- # klipse (64)
- # lein-figwheel (13)
- # leiningen (3)
- # luminus (4)
- # lumo (51)
- # mount (22)
- # off-topic (83)
- # om (22)
- # om-next (8)
- # onyx (3)
- # pedestal (8)
- # perun (6)
- # portland-or (2)
- # re-frame (50)
- # ring (8)
- # ring-swagger (5)
- # untangled (10)
- # yada (9)
Hi, I am thinking of creating an own language of sorts, which transpiles to various other languages, I want to use core.typed for typechecking it, it's easy enough to generate annotated Clojure code. My questions about that: 1. Do you think that is a viable approach? 2. Would I use cf (on constructed code with a big let for the environment) for that, or is there a better way? 3. In an expression like (->> a (filter foo) (map bar)) what is the easiest way to find out the concrete types of the subexpressions? (For example when transpiling to languages without generics)