On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
> On 14.02.2010, at 22:48, Mark Engelberg wrote:
>
>> Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel like deftype's
>> "specify clojure.lang.IPersistentMap as an interface with no
>> implementation, and you'll get a default implementation
On 14.02.2010, at 22:48, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel like deftype's
> "specify clojure.lang.IPersistentMap as an interface with no
> implementation, and you'll get a default implementation" seems like a
> weird exception,
I agree. The current defty
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel like deftype's
"specify clojure.lang.IPersistentMap as an interface with no
implementation, and you'll get a default implementation" seems like a
weird exception, and I can't help but wonder if there's a more general
way to handle it that would h
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Stuart Sierra
wrote:
> Rich's stated reason against this is that he wants to be able, some
> day, to implement maps and map-like things with deftype.
Hmmm, if so, then there's a bit of a design tension between that goal
and the goal of "prefer deftype to defstruct
On Feb 14, 1:53 am, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> I think it would be ideal that if you *don't*
> specify clojure.lang.IPersistentMap as an interface, you still get an
> implementation of assoc that works only with keys already in the type.
...
> Thoughts?
Rich's stated reason against this is that he w
On 14.02.2010, at 07:53, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> After playing around, I think it would be ideal that if you *don't*
> specify clojure.lang.IPersistentMap as an interface, you still get an
> implementation of assoc that works only with keys already in the type.
> In other words, you can't add a ne
Yes, that's what I meant :) .
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Brendan Ribera
wrote:
>
>> You should be able to do (assoc p :x 3), you should get back #:Posn{:x
>> 1, :y 2}
>
> You meant that you get back #:Posn{:x 3, :y 2}, right? Sounds reasonable to
> me.
>
> --
> You received this message be
You should be able to do (assoc p :x 3), you should get back #:Posn{:x
1, :y 2}
You meant that you get back #:Posn{:x 3, :y 2}, right? Sounds
reasonable to me.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to
I was doing some experimenting with deftypes this evening. I
understand that you need to specify clojure.lang.IPersistentMap as an
interface in order to make your type behave like a general-purpose map
(supporting assoc, dissoc, etc.).
After playing around, I think it would be ideal that if you *
