I switched the World Singles’ codebase over to using org.clojure/spec.alpha
today with no problems. Since we always `:require .. :as` it was an easy global
find’n’replace (well, three of them – one for each namespace change needed).
We’re also explicitly depending on the 0.1.94 release (so our b
I guess I should say again that no one needs to depend directly on these -
Clojure will include them via dependency. At some point there will may be a
newer version of these libs you wish to use than the one included by
Clojure and only in that case would you need to include it directly.
On Wed, A
[org.clojure/spec.alpha "0.1.94"]
[org.clojure/core.specs.alpha "0.1.10"]
are available now.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:28:05 PM UTC-5, Sean Corfield wrote:
>
> Whilst this is rather disruptive for current users of clojure.spec, I
> understand and appreciate the goal.
>
>
>
> I hope th
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:27:08 PM UTC-5, Colin Fleming wrote:
>
> Doesn't this mean that Clojure and spec will be mutually dependent, i.e. a
> dependency cycle?
>
Yes
> Is that likely to cause problems for any tooling?
>
No? :) Feedback wanted, though if you find that to not be the
Doesn't this mean that Clojure and spec will be mutually dependent, i.e. a
dependency cycle? Is that likely to cause problems for any tooling?
On 27 April 2017 at 06:27, Sean Corfield wrote:
> Whilst this is rather disruptive for current users of clojure.spec, I
> understand and appreciate the g
On Apr 26, 2017 2:05 PM, "Gregg Reynolds" wrote:
just came across this, which may be of interest to clojurians interested in
iot:
https://www.zephyrproject.org/community/blog/introducing-
javascript-runtime-zephyr-os
builds on http://jerryscript.net
where there is js there is cljs. how nice!
just came across this, which may be of interest to clojurians interested in
iot:
https://www.zephyrproject.org/community/blog/introducing-javascript-runtime-zephyr-os
builds on http://jerryscript.net
where there is js there is cljs. how nice!
haven't found time yet to try either; anybody else?
Whilst this is rather disruptive for current users of clojure.spec, I
understand and appreciate the goal.
I hope that the new org.clojure/spec.alpha will be made available for a few
days ahead of actually removing it from Clojure 1.9 so that those of us already
using it and doing multi-versi
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-5, Leon Grapenthin wrote:
>
> Thanks for the update, this seems like a good decision allowing things to
> evolve more quickly.
>
> Does that also mean that there are no breaking changes intended to current
> non .alpha namespaces/APIs?
>
1.9 itsel
Thanks for the update, this seems like a good decision allowing things to
evolve more quickly.
Does that also mean that there are no breaking changes intended to current
non .alpha namespaces/APIs?
Kind regards,
Leon
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:30:56 PM UTC+2, Alex Miller wrote:
>
> We
Hi Lucas,
lazy sequences, as the one produced by the map/filter construct, aren't
realized at once. I. e. they are returned as a sequence, but your map and
filter lambdas are only invoked once somebody looks at whats in the
sequence. Usually, steps are evaluated in chunks of size 32.
Your filt
Thanks for the update.
This seems like a good decision that moves Clojure forward without tying
your hands as to the future direction of spec.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups
We are moving spec out of the Clojure repo/artifact and into a library to
make it easier to evolve spec independently from Clojure. While we consider
spec to be an essential part of Clojure 1.9, there are a number of design
concerns to resolve before it can be finalized. This allows us to move
13 matches
Mail list logo
