Cam Saul
Cam Saul
Yeah, we can make that Clojure-only with `#?(:clj)`. If it's not there it's not the end of the world in a web application.
See #72. I think we should just replace the watching cache altogether
Related: #52
It looks like ClojureScript stores the individual bits of a multimethod in atoms rather than the entire multimethod itself https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/blob/e8643ab1cbaae9b01d3ed306711883f6473115aa/src/main/clojure/cljs/core.cljc#L2791-L2798 I need to think about how we could do something...
We could also have calls to `next-method` inside the `defmethod` body do the same thing.
This is mostly obviated by #109 and #113.
This becomes sort of an issue when you have "fancy" arglists like `([x y?])` (meaning `([x] [x y])`). We wouldn't want to interpret that as meaning you HAVE to use...
What is the count of an arglist like `[x y z & more]`? We can't count all the forms -- it's not `5`. It's basically `(>= 3)`. So a simple...
Since the `& ...` arity has to be greater than any other arity I think it's safe to just use a set like `#{1 3 &}` where `&` is just...
Maybe `:more` is a more Clojurey way to do this. ```clj (m/defmulti validate-arg-counts-mf ;; 2 ARGS ARE NOT ALLOWED. {:arglists '([x] [x y z & {:as options}]), :valid-arglist-counts #{1 3...