The subject mostly says it all. Example:
;;;;;;;;;;;
user=> (ancestors String)
#{java.io.Serializable java.lang.Object java.lang.CharSequence
java.lang.Comparable}
user=> (ancestors Object)
nil
user=> (derive String ::foo)
nil
user=> (derive Object ::bar)
nil
user=> (isa? String ::foo)
true
user=> (isa? String ::bar)
true
user=> (ancestors String)
#{java.io.Serializable java.lang.Object java.lang.CharSequence :user/
foo java.lang.Comparable}
user=> (ancestors Object)
#{:user/bar}
;;;;;;;;;;;
I'd expect that ::bar would be included in the set returned by
(ancestors String). A similar interaction involving only keywords:
;;;;;;;;;;
user=> (derive ::p ::gp)
nil
user=> (derive ::c ::p)
nil
user=> (ancestors ::c)
#{:user/p :user/gp}
;;;;;;;;;;
I'll open an issue with a patch if I'm correct in thinking that the
current behaviour of ancestors isn't correct in not including the tag
ancestors of superclasses.
- Chas
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
