I think what you're seeing here makes sense. On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 3:39:15 PM UTC-5, whodidthis wrote: > > Are there any thoughts on code like this: > > #_ >
This says to ignore the next read form.... > #?(:cljs (def unrelated-1 nil)) > This evaluates to *nothing*, ie nothing is read, so it is not ignored by the #_. > #?(:cljs (def unrelated-2 nil)) > #?(:cljs (def unrelated-3 nil)) > These also read as *nothing*. > #?(:clj (def n 10)) > This *is* read, but ignored per the prior #_ #?(:clj (defn num [] n)) > ; compile on clj =>RuntimeException: Unable to resolve symbol: n > And then this makes sense. > > I guess it's fine if it continues to work that way but I can imagine it > being a little surprising from time to time heh > Conditional reading is definitely something to be careful about - I think in this case you are combining two types of conditional reading so be doubly careful. :) To get the effect you want in this, using #_ *inside* the reader conditional would work: #?(:cljs #_(def unrelated-1 nil)) -- 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.
