> Yes, it's easy to imagine a world where people who want efficient code
> have to jump through hoops to get it. OTOH, you can just say (num some-
> expr) to force it to be boxed, if you want assurance of an Object
> initializer. Which will be the more common need?
>
>From the wiki page "Enhanced Primitive Support": * Note: this means
that locals initialized with literals will have primitive type, e.g.
(let [x 42] …), and especially: (loop [x 42] …). If you intend to
recur with a non-primitive, init like this, (loop [x (num 42)] …)
I'd like to ask for some consideration on any use of (num x). On the
CLR side, it is unimplementable as documented, there being no
equivalent in the CLR to Number. If a proposed use of num can be
satisfied by this definition of num:
(defn num {tag :object} [x] x)
I can manage. I imagine this to be the case, but haven't had time to
read all the new code.
If you really mean to use a type that is a base type for all the
primitive numeric types -- not going to happen on the CLR.
-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
