On 20 April 2010 19:33, John <[email protected]> wrote: > 2- Clojure cannot unbox the boxed recur arguments which causes a > problem when the arguments of loop are primitive. This looks like a > bug to me. The code posted by Armando can be expanded to include boxed > versions of primitive types, why the code doesn't include such a > check ? Will Clojure's class hierarchy be a blocker ?
If I correctly understand your meaning, I'm inclined to view this behaviour as a feature. Simply because the whole point of having unboxed primitives in loop bindings seems to be defeated if they're going to be boxed/unboxed at each iteration due to some operation stealthily boxing the new values passed to recur -- so if I do write some code which performs unexpected boxing, I'd rather be warned about it. Sincerely, Michał -- 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
