I also saw the reflection
I can fix that one as part of my excuse-to-cut-a-new-release-today.
Yep
I'm assuming it's the same one, but with "0.0.643" the reflection warning is:
Reflection warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:758:24 - reference to field val can't be resolved.With meander 0.626 I got a bunch of such errors, are these expected?
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:123:3 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:157:3 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:191:3 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:221:3 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:314:6 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:291:4 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:374:6 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:348:4 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:435:3 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Performance warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:630:3 - case has int tests, but tested expression is not primitive.
Reflection warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:714:24 - reference to field val can't be resolved.
All of these?
Here’s what I see:
$ clj
Downloading: meander/epsilon/0.0.650/epsilon-0.0.650.pom from clojars
Downloading: meander/epsilon/0.0.650/epsilon-0.0.650.jar from clojars
Clojure 1.10.3
user=> (require '[meander.epsilon :as m])
Reflection warning, meander/util/epsilon.cljc:758:24 - reference to field val can't be resolved.
nil
user=>
I don’t see the other warnings, however. Does anyone else still see the warnings about case on 0.0.0650?You're right! I didn't actually use 0.0.650 - it was still 0.0.626. With 650 all is ok.
I'm still seeing these warnings in the latest 0.0.650 release (when used in a shadow-cljs project)