On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Chris Perkins <chrisperkin...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
As noted earlier in this thread, I have determined that simply making supers return a sorted set with an appropriate comparator (e.g. alphabetic) suffices in this regard. (For performance reasons, supers, or the instance of supers used by protocols, should probably be memoized.) -- 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
