Thanks, both of you, for the extra background there.
On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 9:44:34 AM UTC-6, Alex Miller wrote:
>
> From prior conversations, Rich is not in favor of the preference approach
> for protocols. I'm not sure what he has in mind as an alternative though.
>
> On Wednesday,
>From prior conversations, Rich is not in favor of the preference approach
for protocols. I'm not sure what he has in mind as an alternative though.
On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 9:29:14 AM UTC-6, Nicola Mometto wrote:
>
> Something like what I proposed in
>
Something like what I proposed in
http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1807 would help solve this ambiguity
On 21/12/16 15:22, Mike Rodriguez wrote:
On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 9:02:36 AM UTC-6, Alex Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 7:24:17 AM UTC-6, Mike
On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 9:02:36 AM UTC-6, Alex Miller wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 7:24:17 AM UTC-6, Mike Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> That sounds like a good idea to me. I think the major potential issue is
>> that it creates ambiguity and non-deterministic dispatch
On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 7:24:17 AM UTC-6, Mike Rodriguez wrote:
>
>
> Also, since `reduce` doesn't work like I'd expect here, it makes me
> question if I could rely on the fact that `sequence` and `eduction` do
> happen to work out right now.
>
I think that's an artifact of the
I found an issue with Clojure's behavior on iterators that somewhat relates
to what was discussed the comment thread of
http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1738. I'm posting it here to raise
awareness and to see if anyone thinks it is a legitimate concern or
"behaving as expected".
