@dominicm thanks - got it to work:

{
 mach/constant {msg "World"}

 hello (println (str "Hello " #ref [mach/constant msg])) 
}
# $ mach hello
# => Hello World
# $ mach --constant '{msg "Mars"}'
# => Hello Mars

Great!

@dominicm coming back to our earlier conversation of pondering making this kind of thing nicer: ((js/require "request") "" callback), one might imagine a literal to assist (#js ...)

#js is already a literal

I'd never use require inline like that. I'd always def it as request first.

I think the context is different in Mach to building usual CLJS programs

but yeah. I'm just bouncing ideas around

so many node libraries require one of these forms:

(def r (js/require "request"))
(def r ((js/require "request")))
(def r (.request (js/require "request")))

{mach/npm [["left-pad" "1.1.3"]]

 pad-foo (println ((js/require "left-pad") "foo" 5))}

That just doesn't bother me, oddly enough.

I don't really have a strong motivation - just revisiting this area

but it occurs you could also mess with the mach/npm directive, to add a symbol there you want to def the lib to

Hmm, also a case fraught with peril given e.g. require('material-components-web/dist/material-components-web') is a part of the material-components-web module.

fair enough

I concede

we currently have this to tidy up also:

{mach/npm [["left-pad" "1.1.3"]]
 mach/init (def lp (js/require "left-pad"))

 pad-foo (println (lp "foo" 5))}

for those left-pad zealots out there

That syntax obviously works quite consistently. Not opposed to something like:

mach/constants {lp (js/require "left-pad")}
 pad-foo (println (lp "foo" 5))

{mach/npm [["left-pad" "1.1.3"]]
 mach/props [lp (js/require "left-pad")]

 pad-foo (println (lp "foo" 5))}

We need to ratify constants and props

yes. agreed.