Hi Nicolas, I get the idea, but I don't see how this would help provide a default implementation for the functions inside a protocol. It looks to me like this would be the same as creating a record with only some of the functions implemented. Or am I reading it wrong?
Thanks for your input. Toni. On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Nicolas Oury <[email protected]> wrote: > I read my mail and couldn't understand it. > Here is what I meant: > (defprotocol MessageReceived > (message-received ...)) > (defprotocol ExceptionCaught > .....) > (extend Object MessageReceved {:message-received > default-message-received-function}... > ) > (deftype channel-handler > ExceptionCaught ....) > (not the lack of message received implementation) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- Antoni Batchelli - twitter: @tbatchelli , @disclojure --- email: [email protected] ----- web: tbatchelli.org , disclojure.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
