It could create interop problems with other JavaScript libraries (including Google Closure). extending Object modifies its prototype. The problem is that objects are used as maps in JavaScript and these new properties will appear if someone tries to iterate through the keys with for..in.
It's unfortunate since this means we can't currently use js/Object to provide default protocol implementations as we do in Clojure w/o fear of conflicts with JavaScript libraries. I'd be less worried about the other native types. David On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Dave Sann <daves...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, > > I had assumed from this > > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/KQ6AM-nxlTQ/discussion > > that I could > > Is there anything else not safe to extend? > > Cheers > > D > > -- > 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 > -- 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
