cljs-dev

ClojureScript compiler & std lib dev, https://clojurescript.org/community/dev
dnolen 2019-08-26T13:08:04.185200Z

@scknkkrer that ticket is probably not an easy one if you haven't done a lot of work on the compiler before

scknkkrer 2019-08-26T13:08:35.186Z

Actually, I’ve handle it well.

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:09:25.186900Z

the two patches you have there are not the right way to approach the problem

1
scknkkrer 2019-08-26T13:09:25.187Z

But, if there are exceptions like . and ..; I have to know.

scknkkrer 2019-08-26T13:09:34.187200Z

Oh.

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:09:44.187600Z

you should not be doing anything in parse-invoke for that ticket

scknkkrer 2019-08-26T13:09:48.187800Z

I’m listening.

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:10:00.188100Z

I'm going to reiterate one more time - this is an advanced ticket

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:10:57.188900Z

before doing any more work, you should write a comment to describe exactly what you're intending to do to address the problem

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:11:18.189200Z

it maybe also be that the scope is too wide and invasive for one ticket

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:11:46.190Z

but at the moment it's impossible to tell because there's no description of the problem besides my original annoyance

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:12:07.190800Z

that deftype methods that start a . don't error and produce bad runtime code

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:17:10.194100Z

@scknkkrer that ticket was badly described

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:17:17.194400Z

which was my own fault - I've left a better description

scknkkrer 2019-08-26T13:17:32.195Z

So, you are saying that just deftype methods has to be limited against that check ?

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:17:37.195200Z

I've also clarified where I think this might be meaningful

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:17:48.195500Z

let's step back a second

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:17:57.196100Z

(.foo ...) is nearly always fine

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:18:19.196700Z

it's just a method call - there's no checking to do of any kind

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:18:31.197200Z

(deftype Foo Object (.bar [] ...))

scknkkrer 2019-08-26T13:18:37.197600Z

No, it was my fault. I should asked about it.

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:18:37.197700Z

can't possible work

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:18:54.198Z

and the question is simply whether there are other similar cases

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:19:04.198400Z

and whether the work could be combined - but maybe it can't

dnolen 2019-08-26T13:19:07.198600Z

and we need separate tickets

scknkkrer 2019-08-26T13:19:16.198900Z

**I’ve had should asked about it.

scknkkrer 2019-08-26T13:20:04.199600Z

Ok, boss. I’m still volunteer for this problem.