On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Phil Hagelberg <p...@hagelb.org> wrote:
> > Peter Wolf <opus...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Is there a good reason that + can't do the right thing as with other > > Java and scripting languages? I think this would be popular with > > non-LISPers. > > Putting a type check in + would slow down basic math, and there is a > class of user who will complain loudly if basic math slows > down. However, this also means that > and < also don't work on strings, > which is pretty lousy. > > One approach that's been proposed in #clojure is to make these functions > more capable by default, but then provide a fast-math library that could > redefine them in terms of numerics-only. I'm a big fan of functions > doing the most helpful thing by default but being able to offer better > speed when you need it. > > Convenience vs speed is always a trade-off, but I think convenience > should win in the default case. What do others think about this? > I would much rather have a fast-math library that redefined common operators for numeric types only, and had the default +, <, > be multimethods. -- Cosmin Stejerean http://offbytwo.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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
