Oh, I understand. Works in ClojureScript as well!
I noticed that in this line
(protocols/get [_] 42)
One can safely drop the namespace qualification.
Thank you very much Matthias - this issue was certainly a blocker for me.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Matthias Benkard wrote:
> You have re
You have reused a name already bound in the `protocols` namespace. You
cannot bind two things to the same var.
On the other hand, precisely because namespaces are not complected with
protocol dispatch, you can easily free the `get` identifier for your
purposes by doing exactly what you would do
Hi Matthias, I can't disagree with you, and am open to change my mind. Just
a question. Given again this example:
(ns protocols)
(defprotocol P (get [_]))
(ns app)
(defrecord R []
protocols/P
(get [_]
42))
(can you call R's get without resorting to dot-notation, this is, with a
na
Would it be feasible to efficiently make them first class? Surely this
isn't a new question, as many would desire to write
(mapv .toString (range 10)) rather than (mapv #(.toString %) (range 10)).
Couldn't find info on that topic...
*(just an example, I know there's str)
On Monday, September 3
Hi,
In principle, dispatch is orthogonal to namespacing. It is true that
traditional OO systems complect these two things, but there is no inherent
need to do so. Separating dispatch (i.e., methods) from namespacing is
simpler and more flexible.
This is especially useful when you have multip
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:17 PM, vemv wrote:
> At least from the point of view of someone that isn't too familiar with
> the Clojure internals, I see no downsides - although I tried it! For
> instance, given that one can call (.first ()), I thought that then one
> could call (.first (ARecord.)), w
Correction: records/types actually include plenty of dot-accesible methods,
though less than lists -for instance- do.
(mapv println (.getMethods (.getClass (ARecord.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send em
Hello there,
I'm not quite sure whether is convenient for each method implementation to
possibly shadow previous names, particularly those of clojure.core.
(defprotocol Example
(get [this]))
The previous example redefines get in the current namespace. But is that we
usually mean by "me
