Converted from http://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/tickets/270
Attachments:
dont-copy-val-metadata-onto-new-var-value-in-defn.patch - https://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/documents/dwK4yssayr37y_eJe5d-aX/download/dwK4yssayr37y_eJe5d-aX
0001-set-meta-on-vars-before-evaluating-their-init-see-27.patch - https://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/documents/arrhbiAI4r35lQeJe5cbLr/download/arrhbiAI4r35lQeJe5cbLr

stu said: [file:dwK4yssayr37y_eJe5d-aX]

stu said: The problem happens with defn, but not with def+fn, so I think the original diagnosis is incorrect.

Another stab at diagnosis: The defn macro copies metadata from a var onto its new value, so if you defn a var that already exists, the old var metadata becomes metadata on the new value. I don't know why this would be the right thing to do, and if you eliminate this behavior (see patch) all the Clojure and Contrib tests still pass.

If this is correct, please assign back to me and I will write tests. If this is wrong, please tell me what's going on here so I know how to write the tests.

cgrand said: Child association with ticket #363 was added

cgrand said: I think the original diagnosis is correct. Note that the behavior differ when def iscompiled:

user=> (def #^{:foo "bar"} x 5)
#'user/x
user=> (let [] (defn x [] 5))
#'user/x
user=> (meta x)
{:ns #<Namespace user>, :name x, :file "NO_SOURCE_PATH", :line 83, :arglists ([])}
user=> (meta #'x)
{:ns #<Namespace user>, :name x, :file "NO_SOURCE_PATH", :line 83, :arglists ([])}

See also http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/6afd81896ca368b2#

cgrand said: [file:arrhbiAI4r35lQeJe5cbLr]

cgrand said: My patch aligns DefExpr.eval with DefExpr.emit (first set meta then eval the init value).

cgrand said: Forget it, my current patch is broken.

cgrand said: My current patch is broken because of #352, what is the rational for #352?

Converted from http://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/tickets/273

Converted from http://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/tickets/2

richhickey said: Updating tickets (#8, #42, #113, #2, #20, #94, #96, #104, #119, #124, #127, #149, #162)

Patch demonstrates idea, not ready for prime time.

I think the decision of having to specify either a Closeable resource or a close function for an existing non-Closeable resource in with-open is quite awkward, because they have completely different meaning.

  (let [foo (open-my-custom-resource "foo.bar")]
    (with-open [r (reader "foo.txt")
                foo #(.terminate foo)]
      (do-stuff r foo)))

I think a CloseableResource protocol that can be extended to custom types as implemented in the patch to CLJ-308 is somewhat easier to use. Extend it once, and then you can use open-my-custom-resource in with-open just like reader/writer and friends...

That said, Scopes can still be useful, but I'd vote for handling the "how should that resource be closed" question by a protocol. Then the with-open helper can simply add

(swap! *scope* conj (fn [] (clojure.core.protocols/close ~(bindings 0))))

and cleanup-scope only needs to apply each fn without having to distinguish Closeables from fns.

Converted from http://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/tickets/84
Attachments:
genclass-allow-unresolved-classname.patch - https://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/documents/cWS6Aww30r3RbzeJe5afGb/download/cWS6Aww30r3RbzeJe5afGb

oranenj said: [file:cWS6Aww30r3RbzeJe5afGb]: on comment 1

richhickey said: Updating tickets (#8, #19, #30, #31, #126, #17, #42, #47, #50, #61, #64, #69, #71, #77, #79, #84, #87, #89, #96, #99, #103, #107, #112, #113, #114, #115, #118, #119, #121, #122, #124)

The approach take in the initial patch (delaying resolution of symbols into classes) is fine: gen-class makes no promise about when this happens, and the dynamic approach feels more consistent with Clojure. I think the proposed (but not implemented) use of string/symbol to control when class names are resolved is a bad idea: magical and not implied by the types.

Needed:

• update the patch to apply cleanly
• consider whether totype could live in clojure.reflect.java. (Beware load order dependencies.)

Wow, 18-month-old patch, back to haunt me for Halloway'een

So what does it mean that the assignee is Rich, but it's waiting on me?

I am using Approval = Incomplete plus Waiting On = Someone to let submitters know that there is feedback waiting, and that they can move the ticket forward by acting on it. The distinction is opportunity to contribute (something has been provided to let you move forward) vs. expectation of contribution.