I believe there are some technical issues with allowing re-definition of a class that inherits from a concrete (non-interface) superclass, but I don't know the details.
However, it was mainly a design decision. Clojure is opinionated, and one of its opinions is that concrete inheritance is bad. It leads to problems like fragile base classes, and (in Java at least) it limits you to a single inheritance hierarchy. Even some Java developers will even tell you to use inheritance only from interfaces, and put shared code into static methods elsewhere. -Stuart Sierra clojure.com -- 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
