Yes, the Clojure 1.3 doc is wrong. As a new Clojure user, I was pretty confused for a while.
But after reading this thread I still don't understand why the map behavior (where 3 and 3.0 are considered different map keys) wasn't considered incorrect, rather than the = behavior. http://clojure.org/data_structures has this general statement: - Contagion BigInts and floating point types are "contagious" across operations. That is, any integer operation involving a BigInt will result in a BigInt, and any operation involving a double or float will result in a double. Since this does seem to apply to < and >, why wouldn't = fall into the same category, and therefore why wouldn't it be the map behavior that was considered incorrect? Said differently, what is the rationale for the map behavior? --mark -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
