On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Colin Jones wrote:
> I thought of protocols initially here too, but protocols just define
> functions, so where would the data live that you want as metadata?
>
> A closure over the data? This implies extending the protocol on a
> per-instance basis, which afaik do
I was actually thinking of the case where the metadata was computed in some
way from the Java object (i.e. when it is more like read-only property). In
most of the cases where I have wanted metadata on arbitrary Java objects,
this would have been sufficient.
You probably want to go the wrapper
I think the general solution would be a weak identity map.
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 6:58:25 AM UTC-7, Colin Jones wrote:
>
> I thought of protocols initially here too, but protocols just define
> functions, so where would the data live that you want as metadata?
>
> A closure over the data
I thought of protocols initially here too, but protocols just define functions,
so where would the data live that you want as metadata?
A closure over the data? This implies extending the protocol on a per-instance
basis, which afaik doesn't exist (cljs design work aside
http://dev.clojure.org
Yeah, that's another good example where a protocol might be helpful.
Arguably, you could make a case for nearly all of Clojure's abstractions
being backed by a protocol. It has certainly proved to be a very useful
technique in core.matrix
I don't think there's even much performance downside of
I've also been interested in this for Named (a protocol for things I can
call "name" on), although my use-case is mostly interop with Java
frameworks.
On 31 August 2013 15:13, Mikera wrote:
> It would be better, I think, if metadata was attachable via a protocol
> rather than than a wrapper: th
It would be better, I think, if metadata was attachable via a protocol
rather than than a wrapper: then you could just extend the protocol to any
arbitrary Java class. Wrappers are a pain to make work because of wrapping
/ unwrapping and protocols also have the advantage of being very efficient.
In some cases you could proxy and add IMeta that way.
On Friday, August 30, 2013 2:16:26 PM UTC-5, JvJ wrote:
>
> I've noticed that, when doing a lot of Java interop, it's impossible to
> attach metadata to most Java objects, since they don't implement the IMeta
> interface. A workaround for t
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:16 PM, JvJ wrote:
> Would it be possible (or even useful) to create some kind of generic IMeta
> structure that can wrap other Java objects and have them act like normal,
> except for the added metadata (or even other Clojure-esque features)?
>
Are you interested in :ta
I've noticed that, when doing a lot of Java interop, it's impossible to
attach metadata to most Java objects, since they don't implement the IMeta
interface. A workaround for this would be to do something like put every
Java object in a single-element list and attach metadata to the list, but
10 matches
Mail list logo
