Just to provide slightly more info, that change was made because of this ticket: http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1169
Andy On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Mike Rodriguez <mjr4...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for the delay in getting back with a response to this. I think it > is fairly clear in the Clojure Compiler that there is an exception that > will wrap errors that occur during macroexpansion now. > > Around here > https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/Compiler.java#L6627-L6649, > the Compiler.macroexpand1() now has a try-catch for Throwable around the > evaluation of the macro invocation. > This was not the case in Clojure version 1.6. See around > https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/clojure-1.6.0/src/jvm/clojure/lang/Compiler.java#L6548-L6560 > for a reference point. > > I'm fairly sure that is what has caused this change in behavior that broke > our expectations that the exception types our code through during > macroexpansion would propagate all the way back to the caller. Again, I > think this was a bad expectation to have, but it is a little tricky. > > It is a little trickier for us to have any strong assertions on the type > of exception that may come from a macro now. Compiler$CompilerException > seems too dependent on the implementation. So we've opted to just assert > there would be a is-thrown? RuntimeException in these sorts of tests. If > we want to test something like an ExceptionInfo's data map, we now just > have to write a helper to walk the stack trace until we find it - which > would likely be a single "step" up the trace. > > A simple reproducing case: > *clojure-version* ;= {:major 1, :minor 7, :incremental 0, :qualifier "RC1"} > > (defmacro demo [] (throw (ex-info "fail" {}))) > > (demo) ;= CompilerException clojure.lang.ExceptionInfo: fail {}, > compiling:(form-init4053282905768384039.clj:1:1) > > vs. > *clojure-version* ;= {:major 1, :minor 6, :incremental 0, :qualifier nil} > > (demo) ;= ExceptionInfo fail clojure.core/ex-info (core.clj:4403) > > > > On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 8:52:47 AM UTC-5, Alex Miller wrote: >> >> I'm not aware of any wholesale changes with respect to compiler >> exceptions. Can you give an example? > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
