I believe the protocol's analogue for get-method would be enough. вторник, 3 июля 2012 г., 2:58:49 UTC+6 пользователь Warren Lynn написал: > > When I re-read the thread "defrecord with inheritance" > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/clojure/inherit/clojure/mr-o9sRyiZ0/oM4zRz4dXYsJ > > I am thinking: conceptually, for code reuse, is it a good idea to have > protocol specific type hierarchy? I mean something like this: > > (defrecord a [x y z]) > (defrecord b [x y z]) > (defprotocol p (foo [this] "Hi")) > (record-derive b a p) > > So the above means, when protocol "p" is concerned, type "a" is the parent > for type "b", and any implementation of "a" of "p" applies to "b" if "b" > does not have its own implementation. This is similar to type based > dispatching in multimethod, but right now it seems "(derive b a)" is not > allowed with record as the parent. > > I believe inheritance is not bad, but the traditional OO way fixes the > hierarchy from one pre-designated perspective hence cause trouble when you > need to look at things from another perspective. > > Right now the protocol actually already works on build-in Java hierarchy. > Example: > > (defprotocol testp (foo[this])) > (extend-protocol testp clojure.lang.PersistentVector (foo [this] > "PersistentVector impl")) > (extend-protocol testp clojure.lang.Seqable (foo [this] "Seqable impl")) > (foo []) => "PersistentVector impl" > (foo '()) => "Seqable impl" > > I have no idea if the above is implementable. Any comments? > > >
-- 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
