On Feb 28, 10:49 am, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Chas Emerick wrote: > > > I agree with your sentiment. This has been discussed before here: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev/browse_frm/thread/fb3a0b03... > > > That discussion pretty quickly wandered into the weeds of whether > > this sort of usage of protocols was intended or not, fundamentally > > programmer error or not. There is as yet no input from clojure/core > > on either question. Maybe someone would like to weigh in on the > > issue here? > > Yes, sorry I wasn't available to chime in then. Reply is here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev/msg/2dbd690c7b509b63 > > Rich
I would vote for a stopgap measure in 1.3 to make the selection of an implementation repeatable across JVM instances. It's fine if it's still arbitrary, as long as I can determine experimentally what the behavior is, and rely on that behavior to happen again next time I run my program. This would solve the most painful part of the problem, while allowing someone to come up with a brilliant idea for a proper solution for 1.4 or beyond. - Chris -- 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
