I am still not sure what the definitive answer to this is.
Can anyone confirm?
thanks
Dave
--
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 -
Thank your for patience with me. :) Now it's clearer.
Case 2 and 3 is what I would expect from Clojure and Case 3 is the correct way
to solve that problem. Case 1 is surprising (at least for me) and I would
consider it “just lucky” as you put it. Adding the explicit require will always
work and
To clarify, I hope:
in: protocols.fred.cljs
...
; define protocol Fred
(defprotocol Fred
(fred [this] "fred"))
In: dom.protocols.fred.cljs
; extend Fred to js/Node
In: main.cljs
...
(:require [protocols.fred :as f]) ; non specific version
...
(f/fred a-dom-node)
Now -
Case 1:
put all this
I don't think I understand your point.
>From your description I take it, that the other.project.proto.correct-user
does work for you while other.project.proto.user does not.
If this interpretation of mine was correct: This is exactly what you would
expect from JVM clojure. Why should it be diff
I did think the same way as you - but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I can think of plausible ways that the compiler might achieve this but I
don't know for sure.
Anyway, Even with advanced mode compilation it does appear work fine except
in the case that I highlighted.
I'll leave it to an ex
As an another remark: even if things are baked together into single file
(or however cljs works), I would expect the compiler to remove the extend
since you did not specify you need it. At least this would be my
expectation from the descriptions of the advanced mode of the compiler.
Sincerely
M
Hi,
I still think I'm on the right track with my suspicion when reading your
description. Example (Clojure, since I don't know ClojureScript):
(ns proto.col)
(defprotocol Foo
(foo [this that]))
(ns proto.participant
(:use proto.col))
(extend-protocol Foo
MyType
(foo [this that] ...))
Hi,
Meikel, this is not the case. Since the file is available to the compiler -
it can and generally does do the right thing.
David, I think that I have managed to replicate my issue. It occurs in a
specific case where the protocols are defined in a jar.
j/protocols/fred.cljs - define fred
Hi,
Am 18.01.2012 um 22:58 schrieb Dave Sann:
> in someother-ns.dom.fred
I would expect that you have to explicitly require someother-ns.dom.fred
explicitly somewhere. Otherwise the extend does never happen.
Sincerely
Meikel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog
Not in detail.
I believe that the code may have been excluded in advanced compilation.
I will do some tests and get back to you.
D
--
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 th
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Dave Sann wrote:
> Scenario:
>
> Define a protocol, generally:
>
> in some-ns.fred
>
> (defprotocol Fred
> (fred [this] "do something cool and useful"))
>
> Specifically extend the protocol for dom objects
>
> in someother-ns.dom.fred
>
> ; implementing Fred for
Scenario:
Define a protocol, generally:
in some-ns.fred
(defprotocol Fred
(fred [this] "do something cool and useful"))
Specifically extend the protocol for dom objects
in someother-ns.dom.fred
; implementing Fred for the dom
(extend-protocol Fred
js/Node
(fred [node] (...cool with the
12 matches
Mail list logo
