Cake's global project allows for dev deps to be set for all projects, so this
applies to cake as well.
--
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
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Stefan Kamphausen
wrote:
> could you please elaborate a bit on the swank-clojure issue? Alternatively
> just point me to the threads that I should have read more closely.
Now that Leiningen has user-level plugins, there's no need to put
swank in project.clj since
Hi Chris,
could you please elaborate a bit on the swank-clojure issue? Alternatively
just point me to the threads that I should have read more closely.
Thanks and kind regards,
Stefan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this
My CA has been mailed yesterday, should be in by Friday.
I'll post my registration request to clojure-dev around that time.
I'll have a look at the issue this week.
Luc
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Stuart Sierra wrote:
> FYI, I spoke with Luc and told him I'm happy to have c.c.trace
2011/9/5 Mark Rathwell
> >> Huh, interesting. I assumed ^:foo meta syntax was new to 1.3, and
> >> wouldn't compile at all in 1.2. But now I see that in 1.2 it's
> >> equivalent to ^{:tag :foo} - not useful, but not damaging either. I
> >> guess I'll start using ^:dynamic myself.
> >
> > Actually
>> Huh, interesting. I assumed ^:foo meta syntax was new to 1.3, and
>> wouldn't compile at all in 1.2. But now I see that in 1.2 it's
>> equivalent to ^{:tag :foo} - not useful, but not damaging either. I
>> guess I'll start using ^:dynamic myself.
>
> Actually, it causes compiler errors, when the
Woops. And indeed I'm wrong. It was {:type ::my-type}, not {:tag ::my-type}.
Nevermind.
So ^ now distinguishes between keywords and classes, which it didn't before.
Sorry for the noise.
Am Sonntag, 4. September 2011 09:54:20 UTC+2 schrieb Meikel Brandmeyer
(kotarak):
>
> #^something was equiva
2011/9/3 Alan Malloy
> Huh, interesting. I assumed ^:foo meta syntax was new to 1.3, and
> wouldn't compile at all in 1.2. But now I see that in 1.2 it's
> equivalent to ^{:tag :foo} - not useful, but not damaging either. I
> guess I'll start using ^:dynamic myself.
>
Actually, it causes compile
FYI, I spoke with Luc and told him I'm happy to have c.c.trace continue its
life if he or someone else will volunteer to maintain it. It will need some
changes to work with 1.3 because of how it uses `binding`, but that should
be possible using `with-redefs`.
-S
--
You received this message b
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Alan Malloy wrote:
> Well, ^something still is equivalent to ^{:tag something}, which as I
> understand it is useful for compiler typehinting.
It's probably also worth noting that metadata combines in 1.3.0:
(defn ^:foo ^:bar fubar [] )
In 1.2.1, this gives:
us
On Sep 4, 12:54 am, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 03.09.2011 um 23:12 schrieb Alan Malloy:
>
> > Huh, interesting. I assumed ^:foo meta syntax was new to 1.3, and
> > wouldn't compile at all in 1.2. But now I see that in 1.2 it's
> > equivalent to ^{:tag :foo} - not useful, but not damagin
Hi,
Am 03.09.2011 um 23:12 schrieb Alan Malloy:
> Huh, interesting. I assumed ^:foo meta syntax was new to 1.3, and
> wouldn't compile at all in 1.2. But now I see that in 1.2 it's
> equivalent to ^{:tag :foo} - not useful, but not damaging either. I
> guess I'll start using ^:dynamic myself.
#^
Hi Phil,
We use Eclipse/CCW, not much choices here, we have a mixed language app and
as I age I have less memory space for different dev tools :)
I'll ask Stuart if he has any plans for this.
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 20:37:36 -0700
Phil Hagelberg wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Luc Prefonta
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Luc Prefontaine
wrote:
> So the only thing left on my list is c.c.trace. Any ideas of the future plans
> ?
> Need a volunteer ? Is there a bigger plan to regroup dev utilities ?
Personally I've found Slime's tracing to be a suitable replacement for
c.c.trace. It h
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Luc Prefontaine
wrote:
> So the only thing left on my list is c.c.trace. Any ideas of the future plans
> ?
Stuart Sierra may chip in since he seems to have been the author of that?
It does look useful.
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View --
Thanx
I crossed another list in a different page stating the new names and structures
but did not find
this one. I'll keep the bookmark.
So the only thing left on my list is c.c.trace. Any ideas of the future plans ?
Need a volunteer ? Is there a bigger plan to regroup dev utilities ?
Luc
On S
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Luc Prefontaine
wrote:
> Being curious I checked references to contrib in our code base.
> Anyone knows what will happen to clojure.contrib.def and
> clojure.contrib.trace ?
According to http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/Contrib+Library+Names
some of c.c.def w
Being curious I checked references to contrib in our code base.
Anyone knows what will happen to clojure.contrib.def and clojure.contrib.trace ?
Luc P.
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 15:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Lee Hinman wrote:
> I recommend the lein-multi plugin for testing against multiple
> versions of Clojur
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Lee Hinman wrote:
> I recommend the lein-multi plugin for testing against multiple
> versions of Clojure: https://github.com/maravillas/lein-multi
>
> Makes it easy to make sure you continue to support both 1.2 and 1.3
> for a while.
Good idea.
One thing that folk
I recommend the lein-multi plugin for testing against multiple
versions of Clojure: https://github.com/maravillas/lein-multi
Makes it easy to make sure you continue to support both 1.2 and 1.3
for a while.
On Sep 3, 1:27 pm, Chris Granger wrote:
> Hey Folks,
>
> With the release of 1.3 growing e
On Sep 3, 1:36 pm, Mark Rathwell wrote:
> > I prefer to use ^{:dynamic true} instead of ^:dynamic, unless you're
> > recommending intentionally breaking compatibility with 1.2 so as to
> > encourage people to move to 1.3.
>
> What is meant by "breaking compatibility"? I haven't noticed any
> issu
On Sep 3, 3:13 pm, Alan Malloy wrote:
> I prefer to use ^{:dynamic true} instead of ^:dynamic, unless you're
> recommending intentionally breaking compatibility with 1.2 so as to
> encourage people to move to 1.3.
Presumably you would be doing this on a 1.3 branch of your code.
--
You received t
> I prefer to use ^{:dynamic true} instead of ^:dynamic, unless you're
> recommending intentionally breaking compatibility with 1.2 so as to
> encourage people to move to 1.3.
What is meant by "breaking compatibility"? I haven't noticed any
issues using ^:dynamic with 1.2, am I missing something?
I prefer to use ^{:dynamic true} instead of ^:dynamic, unless you're
recommending intentionally breaking compatibility with 1.2 so as to
encourage people to move to 1.3.
On Sep 3, 12:27 pm, Chris Granger wrote:
> Hey Folks,
>
> With the release of 1.3 growing ever nearer, it's time that we as a
>
Hey Folks,
With the release of 1.3 growing ever nearer, it's time that we as a
community do everything we can to make the migration smooth. In general,
this means relatively simple changes to the libs under your control, but I
also think we should take this opportunity to do some house cleaning.
25 matches
Mail list logo
