Again, I don't know the internal details. If you are saying because of the current implementation, the change is difficult, then we will be talking about the implementation, not about the abstraction design. I have very little to say about that.
On Friday, June 29, 2012 7:50:56 PM UTC-4, David Nolen wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Sam Ritchie <sritchi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Perhaps place them inside a protocol, where core supplies > implementations > > for ISeq only? This would make it easier to extend efficient behavior to > > other types without placing a big burden on core. > > ISeq *is* an interface on Clojure JVM. But ideally it would be > protocol as in ClojureScript. But then all ISeq implementing types > must also implement this new protocol you are suggesting to get these > basic *generic* sequence operations we enjoy today. > > David > -- 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
