Ghadi Shayban <gshay...@gmail.com> writes: > I don't think satisfies? is worth optimizing as using ton of it seems > antithetical to protocols. It signals to me that a caller does in fact > care about the implementation, whereas protocols are about not > caring. Like your PR, if you want to ensure a protocol's coverage, you > can also extend a protocol to Object and/or nil. Not sure what a valid > use case would be for calling satisfies? on a hot path would be.
I use satisfies? for optional features, e.g., if some data structure satisfies some protocol, then that optional feature is enabled, else it's disabled. But that's not really on a hot path so I don't care much about satisfies? performance. Bye, Tassilo -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
