No worries! Big thanks for digging into this, I saw your update on the JIRA as well and it certainly seems like you've found the likely culprit.
On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 4:47:53 PM UTC+1, miner wrote: > > > On Jan 1, 2017, at 7:13 PM, John Schmidt <john.sc...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Steve: both ::game3 and ::game4 from your suggestions result in the same > error. > > > Sorry for my mistaken conjecture. My issue with the macroexpansion looks > like a red herring. I guess I confused myself with quick tests in the > REPL. > > The problem seems to be sensitive to the order of the declaration of the > predicates versus the protocol extension. That is, it seems to work for me > if I do the extend-type Foo before defining the predicates that refer to > the protocol. I probably did this accidentally while playing in the REPL. > > So now I think the issue is that one version of the protocol was captured > by the “early" predicates, and then the protocol itself was changed so > references to the “old” protocol (with the same name) no longer worked. > > The #(…) closure seems to do the right thing as the protocol symbol > doesn’t get evaluated at definition time. > > -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
