2010/6/3 Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> > Hi, > > Am 03.06.2010 um 16:16 schrieb Laurent PETIT: > > > I think I clearly understand the benefits of namespaces in this case. I > was reacting to Meikel's sentence: > > > > "And redefining things in foreign namespaces is rather not a technique we > should support..." > > I think what I meant was mentioned also by the others: don't extend a > protocol to a type if you don't own either one. Doing so if you don't own > one of them, this is basically equivalent to > > (in-ns 'some.other.namespace) > > (let [orig-x some-x] > (defn some-x > [foo] > (if (my-foo? foo) > (do-stuff foo) > (orig-x foo)))) > > Sorry Meikel, but I'm having trouble following you today. Does the above example stand for "pseudo-code" for explaining what happens when one reimplements a protocol (in which case I'm pretty sure you're wrong - redefining a protocol extension on a type redefines it for all following calls, from any thread), or does the above example stand for pseudo-code for how one would "try" to "break the rule" (mentioned by Christophe, Rich, and others) in a (hopefully) non-intrusive way ?
-- 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
