On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Michael Gardner <gardne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 14, 2010, at 9:26 PM, Ken Wesson wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Brian Goslinga >> <quickbasicg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> This topic has been discussed to death before on this group. >> >> If so, it was before I joined. > > That's what archives are for
Are you honestly suggesting I search the archives for every word of every thought that it ever occurs to me to post here? I don't have that kind of time and I doubt anyone else does. If anyone started to actually enforce such a rule, participation here would drop to practically zero overnight. >>> Doing the right thing is actually harder than you might first think >> >> But it's also already being done by Clojure 1.2 so I don't see how >> that's relevant. If someone proposed a novel behavior, it being >> "harder than you might first think" would be a point against that >> proposal. However it cannot logically ever be a point against keeping >> current behavior. > > Are you saying that simplifying existing code provides no benefit? If it breaks existing client code then yes. Simplifying internals without altering API semantics is generally a good thing; when the API semantics start changing, though, an unequivocal improvement becomes a tradeoff that might tip either way. Changing the behavior of arithmetic operators that are found in virtually every extant source file is going to have a very big downside in broken backward compatibility. If there's an upside, it would have to be staggeringly enormous to make such a change worthwhile. -- 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
