On Nov 14, 1:32 am, cody koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote: > On Nov 13, 9:42 am, Sean Devlin <francoisdev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In this case, you provide the docs for each method after parameters. > > Would the following be possible: > > > (defprotocol AProtocol :on AnInterface > > "A doc string for AProtocol abstraction" > > (bar "bar docs" [a b] :on barMethod) > > (baz "baz docs" ([a] [a b] [a b & c]))) > > > This matches the rhythm of the rest of the language. > > > Sean > > +1 for docstring position that matches the rest of the language. I > actually think this is a big deal. > > Other issue regarding docstrings: > > user=> (doc AProtocol) > ------------------------- > user/AProtocol > nil > protocol doc > nil > user=> (doc bar) > ------------------------- > user/bar > ([a b]) > bar doc > nil > > doc gives no indication of any relationship between bar and AProtocol, > other than the shared namespace.
Making the doc refer to the protocol is on the todo list. > Is the idea to use a convention of > max 1 protocol per namespace? No. But all functions of protocols in the same ns live in the ns, so you must have unique function names across protocols on the same ns. Rich -- 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
