Hi, Am 08.12.2010 um 23:53 schrieb Laurent PETIT:
> Meikel showed the way, though it's different enough in semantics to deserve > its own protocol and not override (in fact replace, in his example) existing > concepts. Well, this showed up the second time in two days, so I thought I'd write it up in an email. However: I strongly discourage doing such things. I would scratch a project working internally like that from my dependency list. (luckily the effects of such a protocol are limited to opt-in namespaces) Listen to Laurent! He is an experienced clojurian. This is a different thing. Name it differently! Handle it differently! As the way Clojure works: Listen to Rich! He has probably thought more about this, than anyone else ever will. If something is not the way you expect it to be or something is missing, then there is almost surely a reason for this fact. If you still think, that something should be changed, lobby for the change on the mailing list. Sincerely Meikel -- 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
