David Powell <d...@djpowell.net> writes: Hi David,
> When you create a protocol, as an implementation detail, it also > creates a Java interface. Is a protocal neccessarily an implementation detail? I mean, it might be, but it can also be a public specification of the requirements types have to satisfy in order to integrate with my lib. > When you list protocols in a deftype or defrecord form, the generated > class actually implements that Java interface. And protocol calls to > that type call through the interface. This gives the best performance. > > If you add protocols to an existing class, record or type; this > dispatch is done dynamically and interfaces aren't involved. That suggests that `extenders' is actually a private function for doing the dynamic dispatch. But it's not used at all in clojure.core. And it's inconsistent with extends?. user> (defrecord R2 [] Bashable (boom [this] :boom)) user.R2 user> (extenders Bashable) ;; just returns the "dynamic" extenders (user.Record) user> (extends? Bashable R2) ;; does an implements? check as well true IMHO, `extenders' should return also types implementing the protocol interface directly, so that (extends? P T) <=> (some #(= % T) (extenders P)) holds. Bye, Tassilo -- 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
