Translated loom.graph to CLJS

[Hendekagon]

hi, bit of a messy pull request this one (file mode changes, don't know how that happened) but please review loom.graph -- I translated the code to CLJS by changing (defrecord.. & (extend... to just (defrecord using a horrid macro. I don't expect you to accept this PR without some discussion as the code is messy, but it appears to work. I also added various CLJS implementations of expressions where needed in other namespaces

[Hendekagon]

changed to #queue [], pprinted new function implementations in loom.graph, better formatting

[brianfay]

Any status on this PR? I'm starting a cljs app where I would love to use loom. My use case is hopefully simple enough to use stuartsierra/dependency, but it would be very cool to have loom as an option.

[aysylu]

Hi @Hendekagon, would you mind cleaning up this PR and reverting any changes that are not intended to be part of this? Also, if you could please merge the conflicts, that'd be great. Thanks!

[Hendekagon]

hi, hopefully I caught all the conflicts & this passes all the tests now

[pataprogramming]

Thanks very much, @Hendekagon. I'm reviewing all pending pull requests and issues, and this one is at the top of the list.

[pataprogramming]

Hi, @Hendekagon, and thanks again for putting the work into adding this support. My apologies that it's taken me so long to sit down and give this PR a thorough going-over. I have a couple of requests/questions:

1. This PR has a large number of mode changes to files. Can you please revert them to 644?
2. You've made changes to the core protocols, moving the single-arity versions of successors, predecessors, etc., from the wrappers section into the protocols, and changing their names from the starred versions. Is there a technical CLJC/CLJS requirement for this? I'm reluctant to make breaking changes to the core API, and this would affect anyone who has implented their own versions of the protocols.

[Hendekagon]

hi, this PR is from a fork of an earlier version of loom before the protocols were changed to include the starred fns, so it's now out-of-date

[ghost]

Any hope of this being resolved?
I'm currently implementing a force based graph layout lib for of cljs and clj.
And it would be really nice to base it on loom.

[Hendekagon]

problem is, that the implementations of starred functions like successors* include single-arity definitions that aren't in the protocols

[pataprogramming]

I'd love to get this merged, if someone wants to tackle updating the PR to match the current protocols. I'll get to it at some point, but if someone has free cycles now, it would be a great contribution.

[Hendekagon]

I'm happy to fix it up, but the way it's written atm won't work with (defrecord) unless we add the other arity fn definitions of starred fns to the protocols, afaiu ?

[turbopape]

Hey guys.
I myself used macros etc to try to translate extend to extend-type calls.
too messy, and even if I got it to compile and load, still get artity mismatches in the protocols which prevented me to continue work on it...
Besides, futures etc prevent a pure transparent rewrite, I used a third-part lib wrapping js promises, but it isn't clean.
Can we rewrite the lib to use just common ground between clj and cljs, so I can add cljs part?

Thanks.

Rafik

[pataprogramming]

Superceded by #91.