http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJS-1302
Will try to take a look at it soon.
Thanks for the report.
David
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Alice Bellard wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:19:26 AM UTC+9, David Nolen wrote:
> > Google Closure needs to know about constructors. This is why
Hrm. Ok let me look into this.
David
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Alice Bellard wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:19:26 AM UTC+9, David Nolen wrote:
> > Google Closure needs to know about constructors. This is why we have
> JSDoc support.
> >
> > On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Alice Bellard w
On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:19:26 AM UTC+9, David Nolen wrote:
> Google Closure needs to know about constructors. This is why we have JSDoc
> support.
>
> On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Alice Bellard wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 10:58:38 PM UTC+9, David Nolen wrote:
>
> > Still not quite enou
Google Closure needs to know about constructors. This is why we have JSDoc
support.
On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Alice Bellard wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 10:58:38 PM UTC+9, David Nolen wrote:
> > Still not quite enough information what is the code generated prior to
> advanced compilation?
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 10:58:38 PM UTC+9, David Nolen wrote:
> Still not quite enough information what is the code generated prior to
> advanced compilation?
>
>
> I suspect you need to supply the "@constructor" JSDoc.
>
>
> David
>
> On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Alice Bellard wrote:
> On Sa
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 10:58:38 PM UTC+9, David Nolen wrote:
> Still not quite enough information what is the code generated prior to
> advanced compilation?
>
>
> I suspect you need to supply the "@constructor" JSDoc.
>
>
> David
>
> On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Alice Bellard wrote:
> On Sa
Still not quite enough information what is the code generated prior to
advanced compilation?
I suspect you need to supply the "@constructor" JSDoc.
David
On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Alice Bellard wrote:
> On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 11:24:58 PM UTC+9, David Nolen wrote:
> > It seems to me this p
On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 11:24:58 PM UTC+9, David Nolen wrote:
> It seems to me this problem can could be made more minimal than it is. As it
> is, it seems like Google Closure itself might be rewriting the code. I don't
> see any other way for a gensym to end up used over "this".
>
>
> Nee
It seems to me this problem can could be made more minimal than it is. As
it is, it seems like Google Closure itself might be rewriting the code. I
don't see any other way for a gensym to end up used over "this".
Need more information via a more minimal case.
David
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:56 AM
Sorry, I thought it was the well known issue. Here is the simplified macro:
(defmacro custom-this []
(list 'js* "this")
)
(defmacro test-comp
[tsym tfields bsym & impls]
`(defn ~tsym [~@tfields]
~@(map (fn[c]
`(this-as this#
(aset this# ~(str c) ~c
There's not enough information to determine anything :)
Stacktrace? Minimal case?
Thanks,
David
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Dusan Miloradovic <
dusan.milorado...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am trying to upgrade my project to 0.0-3308. I use goog.base when
> extending the closure ui components. Pr
I am trying to upgrade my project to 0.0-3308. I use goog.base when extending
the closure ui components. Previously (in version 0.0-2311) I used macro
js-this defined as (list 'js* "this") to avoid the advanced compilation error
"First argument must be this", but now this is not working anymo
12 matches
Mail list logo
