Oh, thanks for the explanation. I looked at the twitterbuzz code before replying, saw the function calls with arguments written the usual way, and (erroneously) decided it would be the same for the zero-arity calls. But it's there in the wiki.
On Aug 1, 5:17 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > In Clojure you are correct, as that is unambiguous on the JVM. > However, in JavaScript the meaning of that expression is ambiguous and > so ClojureScript always treats (.foo bar) as *field* access, not a > method call. So in the above example, iframe will be equal to the > *function* getEditableframe. > > There are two options if you want to call a method with no arguments: > 1. (. obj (method)) ; As shown by Brian above > 2. (.method obj ()) > > They're both ugly, but valid syntax in Clojure and ClojureScript. > Actually, style (1) is "classic" Clojure and used to be the only word > order for doing host method calls. > > Anyway, Rich has expressed a preference for style (1). > > I'm personally ambivalent -- I might prefer the potential of someone > reading to code mistakenly thinking () is an empty list to them > thinking that (method) is a normal function call. Actually, I'm still > hoping we'll be able to come up with something less ugly that is > nevertheless consistent with normal Clojure syntax. I have no idea > what that would be. > > --Chouser -- 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
