On Nov 4, 2:56 am, "Christian Vest Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Mark H. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 6:48 pm, Cosmin Stejerean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I think clearly spelling out how objects of a type should be sorted is
> >> the point of the Comparable interface.
>
> > Ah, yes, this is true, I hadn't realized that String and Date both
> > implement Comparable. Comparable is supposed to impose a total
> > ordering on a set, so in a finite set of objects of the same type, the
> > max is always well defined.
>
> +1 on (min) and (max) operating on Comparables.
>
Hmm...
Do you want:
(max 1 2.1 4/5)
to work?
If so, you can't base it on Comparable, which generally only supports
homogenous types.
max, like >, is a numeric operation as it stands, for the above and
speed reasons. If you want a general greatest/least based on
Comparable (or better yet Clojure's compare), I'm not opposed, but it
should probably be a different thing.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
