I'm interested to see any discussion regarding this point. No doubt translating spec data into more friendly formats has been discussed.
Getting the data right is clojure's problem. That's the concrete foundation and building blocks required for tooling. Seems like Rich has done spectacularly there. Potentially it's up to tooling to do more with that data. I'd love to hear Bruce (figwheel), Collin's (cursive) and Bozhidar (cider) opinions about that. On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 08:11:27 UTC+10, Brian Marick wrote: > > > On Aug 22, 2016, at 11:23 AM, Leon Grapenthin <grapent...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Still the error messages are simply far from good enough and that is what > appears to me as the main problem OP has. > > > This is important. Will the new, stricter error messages be improved > before 1.9 is finalized? > > > -- 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.
