On 18 June 2010 15:08, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > While I enjoy a theoretical debate as much as the next person, it would be > nice to see > > (1) examples of real code that fail on reasonable inputs, if this change > were made. And how difficult it would be to fix them. > > (2) examples of real code that get way faster, and the ease of making those > changes (if any). > > WRT #1, we have tested a few dozen libs, and found only a single trivial > breakage in their test suites. But I would say tha is still just plural > anecdotes. More data welcome!
I'm new to clojure, and while I have an interest in fast number crunching, and in easily using big numbers, I don't have a valid opinion on the whole matter. However, I know that some time back, Python changed in precisely the opposite direction - from separate small and big numbers to a unified numeric type. Their situation is completely different (not least because all Python objects are effectively boxed, so the speed benefit of primitive arithmetic isn't relevant) but there may be real-world examples of code that demonstrates (1) in the Python discussions. If the information might be useful, I'd be happy to do some searching of the archives. Paul. -- 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
