Many thanks for the long and reasoned reply (and to mikel as well for adding his thoughts). I apologize for my slowness in understanding the nature of multimethods- it's tricky converting my existing knowledge ;)
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Here are the areas I'm looking to improve: > > - There's no easy way to talk about "the method you would get if you > were dispatch value X". Note that this is not the same as call-next- > method, which reintroduces global ordering requirements, but allows > for easy explicit reuse of already-defined methods. This is the last bit of multimethod reflection I would love to see. Combining prefers and this feature would make it simple to provide functionality like call-next-method/super in a performant way (I believe). > > - Currently, a preference doesn't encompass the path through the > preferred value to its ancestors, but could. > > - If you have a set of common preferences, there's no easy way to > create them in advance and share them among methods. There are issues > here related to ensuring preference consistency and caching. This would be awesome. > > > Can we please move forward in trying to implement something better > than CLOS GFs? I have no interest in going backwards. > > Rich I'm ready to move on, and these thoughts sound great. Onward! ;) David --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
