Received: by 10.236.81.107 with SMTP id l71mr3500896yhe.18.1352314159255;
        Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:49:19 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: clojure@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.92.236 with SMTP id j72ls3172739yhf.1.gmail; Wed, 07 Nov
 2012 10:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.126.243 with SMTP id b79mr3126060yhi.35.1352314149403;
        Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.126.243 with SMTP id b79mr3126058yhi.35.1352314149392;
        Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <rao...@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-qc0-f178.google.com (mail-qc0-f178.google.com [209.85.216.178])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h50si1527993yhi.3.2012.11.07.10.49.09
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rao...@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.178;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rao...@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rao...@gmail.com; dkim=pass header...@gmail.com
Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id j34so1526714qco.37
        for <clojure@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:49:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        bh=vWrS0/cEk/6qYXUu2qOHk0uTYyDSNfmNJ94Z7rBAAb8=;
        b=hk83FPnxeKVb8HIDJrdzpJIoCgEZxtVzCUaUt94n1k8ZvdzZ6p8QuIovNoyu6EBh97
         sR+/y/IqYYVW1XBhLdCi+uNoksCp6q4Qeu3n0iALqKFfNXde0JCNscXH1Rs35du6cB7n
         TDAzAAED0szuQbLt6xeoX6lYzGsuuIUD5x/MsT3FStJpAX9GkSyWM3oyTBVXfSutNnvR
         KKsK3v6PNaof3EK04oExLA0R4ci3kezt/lIfJzNhDGUYk+zKWt4DX2asVxY7/GwGVvKC
         ajrANQMl0ZNTnsYvXr2j3MfbNyny2i2z8pE6CPe1zoKYodgZWlD+5DFjjlFsaUTEj/8Z
         7FHQ==
Received: by 10.229.106.139 with SMTP id x11mr1910486qco.35.1352314149181;
 Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:49:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.198.67 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:48:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <631c4446-5bf7-41b0-8c8a-b00b439e6e92@googlegroups.com>
References: <631c4446-5bf7-41b0-8c8a-b00b439e6e92@googlegroups.com>
From: Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:48:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJ7XQb7bdEziENOUFZCNuHgQvU7gipDqSV7t0jKoqNHg_Vb...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Polymorphism based on predicates instead of dispatch value types
To: clojure@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Matt Ridsdale <mridsd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> that we could be even more flexible if each method implementation
> was associated with a predicate function of the args, instead of being
> associated with a fixed dispatch value. See the below code for an example of

ah, so you can be even less likely to ever statically know what cases
you've covered? :-)