I looked at current version of main and found some unintentional reflection in new code and expect that to be fixed for next beta. There is also some intended reflection in there, based on the docstrings so I left that there.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 1:04 PM Andy Fingerhut <andy.finger...@gmail.com> wrote: > Understood. I am curious, too, and will reply to this email thread if I > get more details in a coherent form. > > The main reason for taking more time here is that it is possible that > Eastwood-generated reflection warnings are different than the reflection > warnings without Eastwood -- Eastwood reads, analyzes with > tools.analyzer.jvm, emits new forms, and then evals those. > tools.analyzer.jvm _might_ be causing the emitted code to generate > different reflection warnings than Clojure would on the original code. > > Probably the quickest way for me to double-check is just to stick a (set! > *warn-on-reflection* true) at the beginning of clojure/main.clj source file > for Clojure 1.9.0 and 1.10.0-beta5 and compare the output there. If those > are identical/similar-enough, then it is tools.analyzer.jvm or something > else in Eastwood causing the different reflection warnings. > > Andy > > -- 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.
