On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum < [email protected]> wrote:
> Dean Landolt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Say you have an object for which you want to implement the Cowboy and > Canvas protocols (to borrow /be's favorite example). Both implement a > "draw" method, but when you try to import from both protocols you'll > naturally have to rename one or both. Now say you want to override Cowboy's > `draw` method on an instance? You'll end up clobbering the Canvas > protocol's draw method with the obviously wrong function. Not cool. This > can be easily corrected with Symbols. > > I'm not sure I understand the example. What does a Cowboy's draw method > do? Is it a specification of the Canvas protocol draw ? > They are two entirely different protocols. > (In that case `.extend`ing the protocol seems to solve it). If you have a > more concrete use case that would really help. > Picture any two protocols that share a method name. Think of another protocol with a "map" method that means something entirely different from Collections.methods.map. The specifics aren't important -- just the idea that these are two independent protocols. You don't want to override a method of one and accidentally override the other. > I don't see how this is any different from other variables and general > naming conflict issues when destructuring. > > The difference is that protocols purport to solve this confusion problem -- it's one of their primary motivations.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
