On 25 мар, 21:41, mikel <mev...@mac.com> wrote:
> Tinyclos is decent, and lots of people have made good use of it. For
> example, it's a "standard" extension to Chicken Scheme (insofar as
> anything to do with Chicken Scheme can be called "standard") and has
> lots of enhancements provided by Felix.
I'll take a look at it. Haven't heard of if before.
> The reason I didn't port Tinyclos to Clojure is that CLOS assumes a
> specific model of classes, and I wanted to concentrate specifically on
> generic functions, not add yet another typesystem to Clojure. You
> could make a counterargument that the CLOS typesystem is specifically
> designed to interoperate seamlessly with legacy typesystems, and you
> would have a point.
Generic functions are part of clos that are the most interesting.
Addition of clos like generic function to clojure that will work with
existing types will be excellent addition. But ability to define new
closs classes would make them even mose usefull. The hard part would
be to answer to the following questions:
Q1 - How to integrate existing java types, clojure types and clos
types into one consistent hierarchy wrt generic functions?
Q2 - How to support defining methods with the same name as existing
functions and let them be used seamlessly?
Q3 - How to handle arity overloads?
Q4 - How to approach immutability? Should clos class instances be
immutable maps or references to immutabe maps?
Qx - ...
Regards,
Marko Kocć
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
