On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <hls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>From my perspective, defprotocol appears to create a name (in the > current namespace) as well as a Java interface (the real type). It > feels to me like I should be able to pass either the interface or the > protocol into extend-type and have it Just Work. Is there some concern > I'm missing here? Thoughts?# I think the problem is that you are trying to extend one protocol to another protocol. I don't think you are supposed to do this. For one, it would only work against deftypes that had compile-time support for the protocol (ie that physically implemented the interfaces), and would fail for deftypes and other instances that implemented the protocol dynamically. I think protocols are designed to be orthogonal, and you should just extend both protocols to the class. -- Dave -- 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
