> In my experience, errors are the problem and we should be avoiding them, > almost at all costs.
This debate always starts by conflating three things into two, and then goes downhill from there. :-( It isn't (a) safe/slow vs. (b) unsafe/fast. It is (a) unsafe/incorrect value on overflow/fastest/unifiable* vs. (b) safe/error on overflow/fast/unifiable vs. (c) safe/promoting on overflow/slow/not-unifiable *unifiable: able to deliver same semantics for primitives and objects We have thought about this quite a bit, and an argument from one axis only (e.g safe/unsafe) that doesn't even mention some of the other axes is not likely to be persuasive. Would be more interesting to see a new axis we haven't thought of... Stu Stuart Halloway Clojure/core http://clojure.com -- 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
