On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Alex Osborne <a...@meshy.org> wrote: >> Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>> Actually you don't need to AOT compile records or types. They work fine >>>> for interactive development. >>> >>> Eh. That's not what I saw written elsewhere. Or is it just protocols? >>> Though usually those are used hand-in-hand with records. >> >> Perhaps you're thinking of gen-class? > > No. > >> Protocols are also fine for interactive development. > > Someone here definitely said, recently and specifically, that at least > one of the feature-complex around deftype/defprotocol/defrecord > required AOT compilation.
Oddly, I'm now having trouble finding it. A simple search turns up this: > It's because of protocols. Code that uses protocols behaves > differently when it's AOT-compiled--the reference to the compiled > version of the protocol is hard-coded into the AOT output. which makes it seem that IF you AOT-compile code with protocols, you then get some stuff "frozen" at the AOT-compiled version until you remove the class files or similar, impeding REPL development (and potentially causing other problems), but there was some other more direct reference to use of some related feature making REPL development difficult and I can't find it. My search was on "AOT", so perhaps that was alluded to without being referenced by that name in the thread in question. Can anyone remember what it was? I'm pretty sure it had activity in the last week or two -- which makes it all the stranger that it's now difficult to find. -- 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
