Fork me on GitHub
#rewrite-clj
<
2021-02-19
>
lread18:02:49

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was at 0 borks on the borkdude productivity meter for the last week, but am back at the keyboard and back to working toward rewrite-clj v1.

🎉 3
Vincent Cantin18:02:54

@UE21H2HHD as I lost a lot of time trying to use cljs.analyzer then realizing that it does not fit my needs, I might implement further versions of my tool based on rewrite-clj + custom analyzer. Let me know if you need any tester for the v1.

lread18:02:04

I also wasted a TON (is an all-caps ton heavier?) of time implementing potemkin import-vars in cljs which I’m going to abandon (which meant lots of time with cljs.analyzer). But… I also learned a TON, so, in the end I’m cool with the adventure.

Vincent Cantin19:02:08

That was also a good experience for myself as well, i learned how to improve Minimallist in the process.

borkdude18:02:51

No borks given :)

vemv18:02:21

not even one nanobork?

lread18:02:14

I usually operate at steady 0.1 borks, but this last week, it was a flat 0 borks weeks.

borkdude18:02:27

Hammock week

lread18:02:51

I’m looking at my old TODOs in rewrite-clj and uncovered a few items around the regex node. One of them has me waffling. Calling sexpr on a regex node currently returns (list 're-pattern string-pattern) . I’m wondering if it should return an actual regex, as in (re-pattern string-pattern) .

lread18:02:51

Or maybe this might be more troubling than helpful for the rewrite-clj user due to diffs in regex for clj and cljs.

lread18:02:39

Given that none have complained about current sexpr behaviour on regex nodes yet, I suppose that is an argument for not changing it…

lread18:02:27

Yeah, I think I should probably leave sexpr on regex node as is for now.

lread18:02:37

I am glad we had this little talk.