2010/6/18 Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com>: > I want it to be perfectly clear to everyone, this is not a choice between > good math and bad math, i.e. C/Java style truncating/wrapping of results. > That will never be the default. Such silent truncation/wrap is truly unsafe, > and often the proposed alternative. It was a surprising result that > optimizations of hot spot, combined with pipelining and speculative > execution on modern processors, makes the overflow checking a very minor > overhead above the raw operations, and, in my mind, a third, new, viable and > safe high-performance option. > > Is a program that might throw an exception unsafe? If so, no Java program is > safe. > > Is a vector that throws an exception when asked to store something at an > index out of range, rather than grow to accommodate it, unsafe? This is in > many ways similar - you are creating a result that doesn't fit, and need to > be using a bigger container. > > So, let's go easy on the hyperbole. The behavior might not be what you > desire, but it is not unsafe. >
Fair enough. -- 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
