Thirded. On Jun 25, 4:55 pm, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Garth Sheldon-Coulson <g...@mit.edu> wrote: > > Personally, I think (= 3 3M) => true and (= 3/10 0.3M) => true would be nice > > to have, given that (= 3 3N) => true. Both are currently false in equiv. I > > also think (= 3.0M 3.00M) => true would be nice. As Rich said, there's no > > particular reason to have Clojure = work exactly like Java .equals(). I > > think all it would take is a call to .stripTrailingZeros() on each = > > comparison of a BigDecimal. > > Yeah, if it's technically feasible, this definitely makes the most > mathematical sense.
-- 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
