Usage of identical? was already largely reserved for high performance code - it's not idiomatic over =. Given that I don't think it really matters much which way we went and now it's water under the bridge.
David On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Peter Taoussanis <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for digging this up, just got bit hard by this behaviour and I'm > wondering what the rationale was for not defining `identical?` as > `keyword-identical?` currently is, and instead adding an additional > `fast-identical?`. > > This way Clojure/ClojureScript code using `identical?` remains portable > without breaking, and `fast-identical?` could be used internally and by folks > familiar with the platform-specific ramifications. > > Or am I missing a subtlety here? > > Thanks a lot, cheers! :-) > > -- > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ClojureScript" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript. -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
