One problem with requiring the "other" object to be of the same type
is that it would break the current model, e.g.:

user=> (= '(1 2 3) [1 2 3])
true

I'm left to wonder if it the more correct implementation of the
desired behavior is not to override the equals, but rather to
implement Comparable.


On Apr 23, 12:12 am, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2010, at 21:15, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
>
> > I have several former deftypes that are a perfect fit for the new  
> > defrecord, except that they need a specific comparison function.  
> > This is usually for excluding some fields from equality testing, or  
> > for requiring identity rather than equality for some fields.
>
> What I'd actually like to have for defrecord is an "equality" protocol  
> that I can implement myself or use a default implementation. That  
> protocol would have a function "equals" guaranteed to be called only  
> if the object compared to is of the same type. Object.equals would  
> take care of type testing and then call the protocol function. That  
> would remove the check-type-before-comparing-fields overhead that  
> every equals implementation for deftype and defrecord currently  
> requires.
>
> Konrad.
>
> --
> 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 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en

-- 
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

Reply via email to