This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2019-11-04
Channels
- # announcements (13)
- # beginners (51)
- # boot (3)
- # calva (10)
- # cider (20)
- # clj-kondo (55)
- # cljs-dev (60)
- # clojure (99)
- # clojure-europe (6)
- # clojure-gamedev (9)
- # clojure-italy (19)
- # clojure-nl (7)
- # clojure-spec (20)
- # clojure-uk (42)
- # clojurescript (96)
- # clojurex (37)
- # clojutre (1)
- # cursive (37)
- # data-science (2)
- # datomic (15)
- # defnpodcast (9)
- # duct (7)
- # emacs (6)
- # events (9)
- # fulcro (124)
- # jackdaw (4)
- # jobs (4)
- # leiningen (9)
- # malli (7)
- # mount (3)
- # off-topic (109)
- # other-languages (8)
- # re-frame (39)
- # reagent (4)
- # reitit (6)
- # remote-jobs (2)
- # rewrite-clj (36)
- # ring (4)
- # shadow-cljs (16)
- # spacemacs (16)
- # tools-deps (91)
- # vim (8)
- # yada (2)
Yannick Scherer, the author of rewrite-clj, is alive. Proof: he just liked a post of mine on Twitter. https://twitter.com/xscys

FWIW I had a short email conversation with Yannick last year. I never met him but we have a mutual friend, I was doing stuff with rewrite-clj and was curious about the status. He wrote he wanted to get a few more things in, which he did, like better support for namespaced maps (although I believe it can still be improved.) He also wrote > Now, based on the already observed busy-ness I'd welcome anyone that would like to take the role of a co-maintainer. I will respond to PRs and issues eventually but I just cannot guarantee short latencies. So, yes, I'm all for more activity within the project but if I'm the sole maintainer I fear that frustrations will arise for all sides.
I also floated the idea of someone else requesting Clojurists Together funding for working on rewrite-clj, which he thought was a cool idea. > It is an interesting idea and maybe this will make things more interesting for potential co-maintainers. Personally, I don't need financial incentives to work on OSS โ at the moment it's a question of timing/energy, mostly influenced by my work situation (lots of early stage projects, new responsibilities, all that stuff).
to me this would make a lot of sense, since so much tooling depends on it it would be a really good way to allocate some of that grant money
He has never responded to any Github issue or e-mail from anyone in this group (at least not since April 2019). At some point we worried that there was something wrong.
my guess is he's just really busy with other stuff. maybe it's time to consolidate everyone's forks into clojure-commons
I've made changes to rewrite-clj that are specific to clj-kondo and probably not mergeable
one thing I fixed was the namespaced map behavior (this was the monkey patch) but later I also changed how metadata is processed
hey @U07FP7QJ0, ๐ ! One thing I did not really notice until digging into the rewrite-clj code is that you can instead use the *
functions from rewrite.clj.zip
to get at the raw zipper. For example down*
is the raw version of down
. Actually this is the only way to go if you have positional support enabled on your rewrite-clj zipper.
the zipper skips over comments and whitespace, but not over uneval. uneval to me is just another syntax for a comment, so it's not very consistent.
right. I used to use the zippers on clj-kondo a bit, but after doing some performance tests I found that manually editing was way faster
for some things it might be nice to not skip comments and whitespace...perhaps it's practical to consider configurable skipping?
yeah you suggested this many moons ago @sogaiu and I still think it is a good option. Weโll break a ton of code if we change default behaviour so an option makes sense.
i'm not sure i've seen the terminology used elsewhere -- i don't see it in the clojure source. there a close thing is the DiscardReader, so may be it could have been called a discard node?
As planned, I am diving back into rewrite-cljc and working toward a release. I'll post progress here as a device to (for sure, maybe, probably) keep myself from distraction. I'll start with taking a look at getting tests running under graal. I've got existing graalifcations to use as a reference (thanks @borkdude!).
@lee is rewrite-cljc based on the clj or the cljs api? are there other changes/differences?
@snoe, there will be minor gotchas, but I am shooting for compatibility with both. Here's my current summary: https://github.com/lread/rewrite-cljs-playground/blob/master/doc/design/01-merging-rewrite-clj-and-rewrite-cljs.adoc