> It is interfaces that are more restrictive than protocols, and extend > can't fix that. This ability to extend an existing type to a protocol > is a main reason protocols exist.
i guess i'm horribly confused about the right mental model for all of this, apologies. e.g. it sounds like the only way i can get a type to participate in an interface is if i control the source file that has the deftype. i thought in previous versions of the new branch i could use extend to get a type i don't own to participate in an interface, which seems desirable. maybe i am horribly confabulating. perhaps the idea would be to make a new protocol that 'mirrors' the already existing interface somehow? thanks. -- 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
