Allie Jo Casey

> I've detalied the steps here. This seems very useful, thank you jloow. I'll experiment with it some myself and make sure there's mention of it in the docs when...

Hy still desperately needs a reorganization pass to eliminate the complex dependency chains that scauligi mentioned. the whole code base is quite fragile to change as it stands.

this graph is giving me anxiety

i think this is worth exploring for 1.0 since it would be a breaking change for macros, but the upside seem pretty nice. Probably should be one of the last...

so poking around at this i don't think we'll be able to excise dots from the beginning of symbols. i.e. `(.bar foo arg)` because the conversion changes the order of...

i don't think `hy.attrgetter` would work, at least at read time, unfortunately ```clojure (-> foo .bar) ;; would read as (-> foo (. hy attrgetter "bar")) ;; would macro expand...

I like that idea. I think we can just leave `FieldAccessor` to contain the symbols to access since `attrgetter` is a hof that returns a function and we don't need...

so having gotten `.foo.bar` and `foo.bar` parsing as `(Interop ['foo 'bar])` and `(. foo bar)` respectively, there are some tradeoffs i've noticed. notably `import` and `require` parsing of relative imports...

having played around with this for a while, I'm gonna say i don't think this is a good idea anymore. It adds a whole host of extra complexity to basic...

it's anywhere you can take a sym that might have dots. Which happens a lot when writing macros in Hy given how prevalent dots are in Python unfortunately.