On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Antony Blakey <antony.bla...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Antony Blakey <antony.bla...@gmail.com> > wrote: > This proposal is IMO a very bad idea. > Why do you need know? You're assumption is built on someone writing a writing a bad library (one that doesn't handle long & BigInt that should). The tools are there for the library to behave correctly regardless of the input. (defn fact [n] (if (zero? n) 1N (* n (fact (dec n))))) (fact 40) (fact 40N) both work. The burden is not on the consumer but the designer of the library. What's the problem? David -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
