technomancy

@Positive07 thanks; are you speaking as a potential user or someone who actually has the authority to accept a contribution if I were to make it?

Thanks for bringing this up. Explicit permission is not strictly required, seeing as how it's granted implicitly by the license as long as you adhere to its terms, but that...

Right; I meant that explicit permission isn't required if you follow the terms of the license by continuing to use the EPL. I see that was unclear. In any case,...

Good to know; thanks. No promises, but I might take a shot at this at some point.

I like this idea, except I really don't think "protocol-version" should be included at this point. Conflating the protocol with the reference implementation is a very bad idea. If we...

> Clients restrain themselves from implementing any functionality in terms of eval and just rely on nREPL ops for everything For the record I'm 100% in favor of this; at...

> can you say more about how you ended up in a the situation where you've mocked the wrong function? We have a situation where we distribute a client for...

> Is it viable to provide a suitable mock client as part of the library? The mock is included in the library already; the problem is it's overlooked. The intent...

I think we can drop this now.

I took a very rough shot at implementing this here: https://github.com/technomancy/microscheme/commit/3a8838560c40755ef2e3d150f95d996b9008bf4c In my patch I attempt to replace the `get-environment-variable` expression with a string literal. However, when I tested it,...