Re: Vars named **

Maybe Nightcode would scratch a similar itch? On Monday, 6 June 2016 21:02:59 UTC-6, Fluid Dynamics wrote: > > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 7:28:18 AM UTC-4, Gordon Syme wrote: >> >> Easily verified - >>

Re: Vars named **

Since hardly anyone uses Clooj, I doubt Arthur has had much incentive to keep maintaining it. The last commit to the entire project was almost exactly two years ago… Sean Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not

Re: Vars named **

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 7:28:18 AM UTC-4, Gordon Syme wrote: > > Easily verified - > https://github.com/arthuredelstein/clooj/blob/master/project.clj What the hell? That commit is over two years old. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure"

Re: clojure.spec & protocol fn

Just guessing from past experience in the Clojure internals: Instrumenting protocol methods it likely possible, but unlikely to be worth the effort. There are already a bunch of places where protocol functions are different. The accepted convention is to always wrap a protocol method with a

[ANN] clj-time 0.12.0

What is it?     Clojure wrapper around Joda Time 0.12.0     https://github.com/clj-time/clj-time What’s new?     Update to Joda Time 2.9.3     Clojure 1.8.0 by default (tested against 1.6, 1.7, 1.9 as well)     More convenient

spec performance comparison

Awesome! Would be interesting to see other metrics charted eg loc, memory. -- 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

spec performance comparison

Awesome! Would be interesting to see other metrics charted eg loc, memory. -- 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

spec performance comparison

Awesome! Would be interesting to see other metrics charted eg loc, memory. -- 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

[ANN] Your chance to get PurelyFunctional.tv Online Mentoring for free

Hi Clojurists! Do you want to become a Clojure professional? I am happy to announce that PurelyFunctional.tv has shed its Beta test molt and has emerged with a plethora of new features. A membership in *PurelyFunctional.tv Online Mentoring * gives you access to

Re: clojure.spec & protocol fn

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 8:23:10 PM UTC+2, red...@gmail.com wrote: > > http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1941 has some discussion about > places where instrumenting won't work. > > Does this mean that this is a bug or something crucial related to protocol design is preventing this ever

Re: Is there any desire or need for a Clojure DataFrame? (X-POST from Numerical Clojure mailing list)

Chaoya, I haven't been working on this, and I don't really intend to anytime soon, there's other work that I must attend to in the immediate time-frame. - Arthur On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 11:51:49 PM UTC-4, Chaoya Li wrote: > > Hi I'm interested in Clojure DataFrame implementation. How

Re: Get the name of parameters in a function

Thanks a ton, that's why I like the Clojure community so much! On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 1:23:13 AM UTC-4, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:45 AM, James Reeves > wrote: > >> You can do it with a macro. >> >> - James >> >> On 3 June 2016 at 22:22,

Re: Vars named **

Easily verified - https://github.com/arthuredelstein/clooj/blob/master/project.clj -Gordon -- 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

spec performance comparison

Hi, I have added spec to validation-benchmark[1]. The results are here: http://muhuk.github.io/validation-benchmark/ Could you please take check if the implementation is correct and reasonable? Also, I am trying to keep all benchmarks self-contained (in one def/defn). It there a way to perform