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 deftype is meant to be both the primitive construct for implementing data types, and a high-performance substitute for defstruct. It would be conceptually cleaner to separate these two roles. > Has their been any community brainstorming about what the syntax could > look like for a general mechanism to specify within a deftype default > implementations or default partial implementations of various > interfaces? I don't remember. The issue of default implementations comes up now and then, but only in the form of the question "is it possible?". In my own applications, I have only used deftype as a primitive construct, not as a substitute for defstruct. The special status of IPersistentMap thus never bothered me. However, I do see other cases where default implementations would be useful to have. And then IPersistentMap could become just one of them. Konrad. -- 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
