Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
As far as I can tell, if I want to define a protocol (defprotocol) that will only be implemented by one defrecord, I still have to define the protocol first, then define the defrecord that implements it:
(defprotocol AProtocol
(a-method [this])
(b-method [this that]))
(defrecord ARecord [a-field b-field]
AProtocol
(a-method [this] ...)
(b-method [this that] ...))
Is there no way to combine the two, perhaps with an “anonymous” protocol?
Don’t do this. A “private” or “anonymous” protocol that your record implements is just reinventing a pointless version of OOP in a language that has better options. Define a regular old function that operates on your records; there’s no reason it has to be physically attached to them.
If you later want to refactor it to be a protocol instead…it’s easy! The client won’t be able to tell the difference, because protocol function calls look just like regular function calls.