On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Rich, thanks for the extended explanation of the overlap between the > old and new constructs; I found this explanation much clearer than > what is currently on the wiki. Basically, the key for me was > realizing that these new constructs are all you're likely to need as > long as you are just programming "in Clojure" and not worrying about > Java interop. > > A related question I have is to better understand the > overlap/relationship between multimethods and the new protocols. At > first glance, they seem fairly orthogonal. If you have something that > dispatches only on type, or corresponds to a Java interface, use a > protocol, otherwise use multimethods. However, I notice that one > thing protocols give you is the ability to batch function requirements > and say, "these functions need to be implemented together". It seems > to me like there is just as much value to being able to include > multimethods as part of such a requirement of things to implement > together. So would it make sense for multimethods to be included as > part of protocols, or should there be some similar grouping system for > multimethods? Since a multimethod maybe used where any Clojure function may be used, and a Clojure function may be used to implement a protocol, can't multimethods be used to implement (part or all of) a protocol? -- 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 - please be patient with your first post. 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
