On 13/06/13 18:52, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
On 13/06/13 18:47, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
On 13/06/13 18:28, Leon Barrett wrote:
It shouldn't be necessary to examine the source to know what's going
on in a builtin, really, but I also encountered this one recently.
The way the extend-protocol macro finds which entries are types and
which are function definitions is by checking which are lists.
I'm not sure I follow...if we can't have lists that evaluate to Class
objects then how am I able to succesfully use (Class/forName "[D")
as the first extension but not in any other position?
should I be using (eval (Class/forName "[D")) so the macro definitely
receives a Class?
You say you've encountered this a lot...can you elaborate? what did
you do?
many many thanks,
Jim
or can you perhaps show an example of successfully extending any
protocol to at least 2 primitive array types?
Jim
If I simply def the class objects upfront and use the vars in the
extend-protocol macro?that could possibly work as there will be no
confusion as to what is a list and what isn't... I'll try that as soon
as I get back!
Jim
--
--
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
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
