Tassilo Horn <t...@gnu.org> 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.
Have you tried just implementing the protocol over Object to do nothing? Then putting use an alternative implementation of the protocol where you want. I did this to avoid lots of (when (satisfies? AProc o) (do-method o)) and just have (do-method o) instead. But if I understand how protocols are implemented (which I don't), I think this also avoids the type look up. Phil -- 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.
