I appreciate your detailed response, and you've certainly done great work with Cursive. I always recommend it to any Java programmer who is starting to learn Clojure. I will start to more seriously weigh the pros and consadditional of switching away from emacs. The cult of emacs has had a strong pull on me but your good work may mean I should leave it for Clojure work too (and not just for Java work :-)).
Cursive is doing much more in trying to match the Clojure compiler than I believe the compliment library has done to date. Part of me likes the readability of the syntax: (String:charAt my-string 0) over (-> ^String my-string (.charAt 0)) But I realize that is much more subjective than anything else. I have to say, in delving into this even a little -- I appreciate the time you must have spent matching the Clojure compiler. I just remember looking at Kawa's syntax for Java method calls and thinking, wow, I wish Clojure had that -- so much more readable! I like your last example a lot: (foo .method) => getting turned into (.method foo) automatically by the editor. I've actually looked at doing a similar thing with my macro -- basically using it in my editor, and then adding an nREPL middleware to transform it to the much beloved (.method obj args) notation. Since I subjectively like the readability of (String:charAt obj 0) better than (.charAt ^String obj 0) I didn't go that route in this discussion. I'm curious though, why additional macro / slightly differences from "idiomatic" seems so important to avoid. I think something as simple as (String:charAt obj 0) notation would be pretty simple for a third syntax (since we already have two built in ways of doing it) -- and closer to the static method invocation syntax -- so really a third built-in syntax (Integer/parseInt "12"). But that's more a philosophical question I suppose :-). LISP curse anyone? :-) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 8:40 AM, Colin Fleming <colin.mailingl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cursive already allows this with no syntax changes, but it does require > reproducing Clojure's type inference in the editor. Cursive performs this > type inference, so (modulo bugs) it knows the types of basically everything > that the Clojure compiler does (and in fact in some situations can do better, > but I deliberately use just what the compiler knows right now). > > This is used in various ways in completion. All of the cases that Aaron > enumerates above work, since Cursive can correctly propagate the types in > threading forms/doto etc (| is the caret): > > (-> "my-string" > (.ch|)) ; <- Only String methods here > > (-> (new MyType) > (.|)) ; <- MyType methods here > > (def foo "hello") > > (-> ^String foo > (.to|)) ; <- String completions here too, because of the type hint. > ; Cursive can do better here even though the Clojure > compiler doesn't. > ; Currently I restrict this, but completing could e.g. > automagically insert the type hint. > > (let [foo "string"] > (-> foo (.to|)) ; <- No type hint required, since we know the type of foo > > Additionally, Cursive supports the following: > > (let [foo (ArrayList.) > iterator (.iterator foo)] > (.ne|)) ; <- Here, .next will be offered even though Iterator isn't > imported, > ; because Cursive knows the types we have in scope at the > caret. > > (let [foo (ArrayList.)] > (foo .i|)) ; <- Here, I've put the receiver first, then I'm completing > the method call. > ; Since Cursive knows the type of foo, only ArrayList > methods will be completed. > ; When I select a completion, Cursive will swap the two > around, like: > (let [foo (ArrayList.)] > (.iterator foo|)) > > I use this last one all the time, and it basically makes Clojure completion > as good as Java completion. Someone pointed out to me that this should really > use the existing dot syntax, like: > > (let [foo (ArrayList.)] > (. foo it|)) ; <- completes to: > > (let [foo (ArrayList.)] > (.iterator foo|)) > > But I haven't implemented that yet. > > I don't do any of the more tricky stuff that IntelliJ does like transitively > searching across chained method calls based on the type, etc, but that's just > a time issue - there's nothing preventing Cursive from doing that too. Also, > offering completions from classes that are not imported but are in scope > makes a huge difference, even without any switching trickiness. > > Cheers, > Colin > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 04:34, Didier <didi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> How does the new syntax help the tooling figure out the type? >> >> (def var (SomeType.)) >> (.method var) >> >> Or >> >> (jvm (var.method)) >> >> I'm not sure how you narrow down to only the SomeType methods? >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your >> first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com](mailto:clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com) >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Clojure" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to >> [clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com](mailto:clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com). >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
