I may have misunderstood what I've read about protocols, so please set me straight if the following is wrong -
On Aug 25, 11:08 pm, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the current behavior follows the principle of least surprise: > > (1) bar is a function, in whatever namespace the protocol Foo is defined in > But bar is not a single function. Multiple bars can coexist in some sense, right? Otherwise there's no polymorphism? > (2) you redefine bar (perhaps by reloading the file Foo is in) > I don't see this as bar being re-defined, rather bar is defined for fooed, then defined for Object > (3) you call bar and get the new behavior > It seems that the dispatch mechanism for bar is preferring Object's bar rather than user.fooed's bar. This is not what I expected. So maybe the right way to think about this is that protocols don't pay attention to class hierarchy when dispatching: user.fooed is an Object, and bar was defined for Object after bar was defined for user.fooed, so Object's bar is selected? -- 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
