On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Allen Rohner <aroh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I agree regarding concatenation as well, but I think the case for >> comparison of non-numerics is still pretty strong. >> >> -Phil > > Are you referring to using <, >, =, with objects that implement > java.lang.Comparable? > > i.e. given x.compareTo(y) == -1 > (< x y) > => true > > I would find that useful.
I think having <, >, <=, >= be based on Comparable has been discussed before. And the conclusion was that it was a bad idea, because in Java: user=> (.compareTo (Integer. "10") (Long. "10")) java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.Long cannot be cast to java.lang.Integer (NO_SOURCE_FILE:0) And: user=> (.equals (Integer. "10") (Long. "10")) false Whereas in Clojure: user=> (< (Integer. "10") (Long. "10")) false user=> (= (Integer. "10") (Long. "10")) true Given these consequences, I think the current behavior is the best compromise. > > Allen > > > > -- Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, Christian Vest Hansen. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
