Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel like deftype's "specify clojure.lang.IPersistentMap as an interface with no implementation, and you'll get a default implementation" seems like a weird exception, and I can't help but wonder if there's a more general way to handle it that would help with some of the other issues that are typically solved with abstract base classes and mixins.
Has their been any community brainstorming about what the syntax could look like for a general mechanism to specify within a deftype default implementations or default partial implementations of various interfaces? extend's capability to use maps of keywordized function names to method implementations is potentially powerful, but I wonder if it might be nice to also add to these maps metadata which indicates a list of interfaces/protocols known to be implemented (or partially implemented) by the methods in that map. This might allow for a syntax within deftype where after defining the fields of the type, you can specify a bunch of these "mixin maps", and it can use the metadata to automaticaly categorize them into the appropriate interface implementation. -- 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
