> I think not a bug. If you want indirection in your wrapper, you can ask for
> it, e.g.:
>
> (defn wrap [f]
> (fn [& args]
> (apply @f args)))
>
> (def wrapped-x (wrap #'x))
Thank you!
-David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group
> The following code shows surprising behavior related to using protocol
> functions in higher order functions. I sort of understand the reason
> wrapped-x first fails is that calling extend-protocol in a sense
> redefines the x protocol function. I can't decide if I think this is a
> bug or just t
The following code shows surprising behavior related to using protocol
functions in higher order functions. I sort of understand the reason
wrapped-x first fails is that calling extend-protocol in a sense
redefines the x protocol function. I can't decide if I think this is a
bug or just the way pro
