Avoid dots in the name part of symbols. "js/a.b.c" works to reference "a.b.c"
by value (i.e. without calling it), but it's not idiomatic. Prefer (.. js/a -b
-c), or using your examples:
(.. js/Foo -Bar -Foo2 -myProperty)
(.. js/Foo -Bar -Foo2 myMethod)
The "js" pseudo-namespace is special becau
why is it not considered idiomatic, I see that pattern used all the time.
Doesn't clojure itself use fq namespaces occasionally? (just no js prefix)
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:45:55 PM UTC-4, Francis Avila wrote:
> Avoid dots in the name part of symbols. "js/a.b.c" works to reference "a.b.c
Sounds good, thank you. Of course I agree, that using dots (like in
"(js/console.log x)") is faster to write.
W dniu czwartek, 28 sierpnia 2014 23:45:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Francis Avila
napisał:
> Avoid dots in the name part of symbols. "js/a.b.c" works to reference "a.b.c"
> by value (i.e. witho
On the other hand, I've found this JIRA bug:
http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJS-455
with the comment of David Nolen:
"This patch creates issues around using constructors provided by libraries
outside ClojureScript and GClosure. Also from Rich's original commit support js
prefix, it seems l
There's no question that it's allowed. You can use js/a.b.c
However, it is *less idiomatic* because there's no analogous construct in
Clojure (not ClojureScript) code. In Clojure, a symbol referencing a var in a
namespace will only ever have a name part without dots.
The fact that the CLJS-445
Fully agree, thank you for helping me.
W dniu piątek, 29 sierpnia 2014 20:37:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Francis Avila napisał:
> There's no question that it's allowed. You can use js/a.b.c
>
>
>
> However, it is *less idiomatic* because there's no analogous construct in
> Clojure (not ClojureScript)
