I think the extend function is made exactly to support the concrete implementation of protocols. It takes a type, and then any number of protocol + function map pairs, where keyword names map to functions. Checkout the protocol docs on assembla and look for extend:
http://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/clojure/Protocols or read a recent post by Rich where he talks about some of the design decisions behind these constructs: http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/msg/330c230e8dc857a9 -Jeff Rose On Feb 9, 12:13 am, aria42 <ari...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it possible to have default implementations associated with > functions in a protocol? This is most useful when some protocol > functions are defined in terms of other. For instance, > > (defprotocol Span > (start [self]) > (stop [self]) > (span-length [self])) > > Now I know I can just make span-length a function on Span as opposed > to part of the protocol. Is that what one should do? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
