On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Can't you just use extend-protocol to group your protocol >> implementations for each record type in one place? > > That certainly works, but it's really not much different than: > > (defrecord Bar [x y] > Foo > (bar [_] ...) > (baz [_] ...) > > which is what I'm trying to avoid. > > It seems to me that the only reason that specifying the entire > implementation together is to avoid situations where the > implementation is not completely defined. > > See, I'm less concerned about implementing the Protocol than I am > about creating "functions" that are dispatched by type, and since they > have to have the same argument list, I see no reason why that > boilerplate can't be eliminated. > > Perhaps one solution for me is to write a macro that constructs a > protocol (and extends it to types) out of the definitions provided.. > sort of a hybrid of extend-protocol and defp from before. > > (defwhatever Foo > (bar [_] > String (body) > Character (body)) > (baz [_] > String (body) > Character (body))) > > Which gets me to where I ultimately want to be (methods defined > together per type extended too), but not quite what I'm really looking > for.
Now it sounds like you might want a plain old multimethod. -- 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
