On Mar 30, 2009, at 0:16, mikel wrote: > Sure, that's right. Maybe constructing such a value in the first place > is an error.
I'd say so. If it were up to me to provide a fix for the situation you describe, I'd fix proxy to make it impossible to create an object that doesn't implement the interfaces it claims to implement. However, it is well possible that such a fix would be difficult, impossible, or imply a high run-time penalty. I don't know enough about the JVM to judge. However, I consider this case sufficiently pathological, and highly unlikely to occur by mistake, that I'd accept functions raising exceptions when presented with such an inconsistent object. In other words, I'd declare such objects "not a valid Clojure object", without necessarily enforcing that rule at object creation time. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
