> Stu, (or anybody) I'd like to ask about a variation on this point. How > do you handle the case where you have a general function that works > for every type you'd like to implement a protocol for (thus not > technically needing to be in a protocol), but maybe 1 or 2 of the many > types have more efficient implementations possible? Do you just suck > it up and copy and paste the general function around? Or is there a > better way? Maybe the new case function?
This might be a job for a more granular protocol. Take a look at how granular Clojure's implementation abstractions are (even prior to the introduction of protocols). The Java interfaces often have 0, 1, or 2 methods. > After reading the docs on clojure.org/protocols, it seemed like you > could just define the general implementation of functions under Object > and then define your specific implementations on the other types, but > this didn't seem to work for me. I would get an error to the effect of > "foo is not defined for Type" Once you define a protocol for a type, you have to implement everything (that you plan to call) with that type. You can either (a) make more granular protocols, in particular single-method protocols, or (b) use the "base-map + assoc in overrides" pattern referenced earlier in this thread and described at http://fulldisclojure.blogspot.com/2010/08/thoughts-on-protocols.html. Stu -- 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
