How does the new syntax help the tooling figure out the type?
(def var (SomeType.))
(.method var)
Or
(jvm (var.method))
I'm not sure how you narrow down to only the SomeType methods?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this
This seems like it could be done using threading.
(-> "my-string"
(.ch<-- completion should give you good results here, for only
String methods
(-> (new MyType)
(.<-- completion should give you only methods of MyType
; One interesting case is the following:
(def foo "hello")
Comments inline... I really appreciate you taking the time to look at this. I
think I am still imprecise in my language -- I hope the comments below doesn't
come across as too tedious :-)...
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:46 PM, Timothy Baldridge
wrote:
> As
As you say, this is a limitation in the code completer. In Cursive this
problem doesn't exist to this extent, when I type `(.get` the completer
responds with a list of methods and classes that could be completed to that
method, starting with classes in the namespace I'm currently editing.
Yes, thi
Comments inline...
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:47 PM, 'Tatu Tarvainen' via Clojure
wrote:
> Nice. I like the syntax, I'll try it out.
Thanks -- let me know if the boot command doesn't work... I had to update boot
on one of my boxes to get it to work ("boot
I apologize for diving into a solution in my first email -- let me give a
little more of the background as to what I am trying to accomplish.
I'm proposing an additional syntax for Java interop for the purpose of allowing
support for more precise code-completion of Java fields and methods in Clo
I don't understand why this is needed. Why can't cider code complete on the
normal method format? What's the problem this code is trying to solve?
Timothy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@go
Nice. I like the syntax, I'll try it out.
But it seems unlikely to me that the interop forms would be changed in core
at this late stage.
As metadata tags can be added to symbols, could we write (^String .charAt
"test-string" 0)
It doesn't look as nice as your proposed syntax, but is possible
