On Jun 18, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
On 18.06.2010, at 14:49, Rich Hickey wrote:
I don't see a way around this fundamental dichotomy. The semantics
for + should be unified, and the operator that makes the other
choice needs to be called something else, or placed somewhere else.
My preference would be "placed somewhere else". We have namespaces,
so why not profit from them?
My vote would be for:
1) clojure.core/+ doing bigint promotion and reduction under all
circumstances (no optimizations that would break the semantics)
2) clojure.fastmath/+ doing type-specific and optimized addition.
This would retain the "safe by default" approach that I think fits
Clojure best, and yet make it easy to use the "fast" version
everywhere with nothing to change but the ns form at the top of a
module.
Which then begs the questions:
- how will someone 'protect' themselves from libraries written using
fastmath?
- similar looking code will change semantics when the ns switch is
made - seems dangerous as it might violate the presumptions of the
original authors.
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
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
