I think of defprotocol/deftype as a dispatching mechanism to the functions named in the protocol. As such, it doesn't make sense (within the scope of a single namespace) to declare the same function name in two protocols any more than it would make sense to call defn twice with the same name.
In the example you present, I'd say you have one protocol with toString, and say two other protocols, each declaring their own relevant functions, and a deftype can implement what protocols it wishes. On Jan 25, 2:17 pm, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote: > the signatures in the protocols of a namespace collide if the names > are the same. what do people do about that? i think i can't even > extract the common thing since there is no way to extend a protocol / > no 'inheritance' of protocols? > > (ns bar) > (defprotocol P1 (toString [this])) > (defprotocol P2 (toString [this])) -- 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
