This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2018-01-12
Channels
- # arachne (1)
- # aws (2)
- # beginners (123)
- # boot (22)
- # boot-dev (8)
- # chestnut (3)
- # cider (38)
- # clara (36)
- # cljs-dev (148)
- # clojars (2)
- # clojure (76)
- # clojure-austin (2)
- # clojure-greece (1)
- # clojure-italy (6)
- # clojure-russia (5)
- # clojure-spec (8)
- # clojure-uk (65)
- # clojurescript (45)
- # core-async (38)
- # cursive (9)
- # data-science (5)
- # datomic (28)
- # docs (1)
- # emacs (2)
- # fulcro (34)
- # hoplon (18)
- # jobs-discuss (7)
- # keechma (8)
- # lumo (5)
- # om (3)
- # onyx (31)
- # parinfer (1)
- # pedestal (1)
- # re-frame (20)
- # reagent (5)
- # ring-swagger (16)
- # shadow-cljs (56)
- # spacemacs (11)
- # specter (8)
- # sql (5)
- # unrepl (29)
- # yada (6)
I’ve (re)watched Stu H “repl/sidecars” talk and I’m wondering to which extent using main/repl
is advisable.
@cgrand not sure if on the same topic, but moving to an own unrepl/repl implementation may be beneficial for cljs as well, since there's no main/repl
template afaik -- it'd be great if we could duplicate some code there
@volrath I was thinking about the idea of people shipping specialized repl tools based on repl upgrade (`main/repl` being used most of the time): this approach doesn’t compose.
I think some of the async mess could be abstracted away, but it's only a hunch, I do not have a well formed understanding of all the details of cljs repl yet
re “specialized repl tools”, well you can’t have one tool that upgrades to have a pretty printer, one to have nicer exceptions etc.
what I wonder right now is if it's really useful to go that way, instead of making a dictatorship. I mean, I'm all in favor of extensibility always, but I don't know to which point people would really build this type of features themselves
I 👍 I think his premise his wrong at least twice: • technically upgrading the repl doesn’t scale below 1 tool, • socially that clojure doesn’t need tools because you can just hack them on the spot
it’s a bad case: assuming defaults (max length 10 and max depth 8), first value has one elision, second value has 11 elisions, third value has 111 elisions etc.
In addition to depth and length, an upper bound on number of collections should be considered
@volrath a while back I mentioned I wasn’t happy with how the unrepl protocol handles further upgrades.
Currently on upgrade a :bye
is emitted and we revert to a plain repl while providing many ways to still get messages on another connection. I believe it’s both complex and wrong.