> I should have said "they shouldn't be equal" based on Rich Hickey's > explanation that from now on (= 1 1.0) will return false. I think by > this logic (= 1.0M 1.0) should also be false. I have no idea what the > current branch actually does though -- haven't tried it yet. > > Ah, yeah, fair enough. I would merely like to have floating point hash codes that match floating point equality.
In other words, if we were to stick with the status quo where (= 0.3 0.3M) => true and (= 3/10 0.3) => true, then it would be nice to get BigDec hash codes that match Double hash codes. But you're right that Rich's message suggests we're moving to a world where (= 0.3 0.3M) => false. I hadn't realized the (good) consequences for floating point equality. In that world, you're right about hash codes. I also see what you mean about contagion. Personally, I think (= 3 3M) => true and (= 3/10 0.3M) => true would be nice to have, given that (= 3 3N) => true. Both are currently false in equiv. I also think (= 3.0M 3.00M) => true would be nice. As Rich said, there's no particular reason to have Clojure = work exactly like Java .equals(). I think all it would take is a call to .stripTrailingZeros() on each = comparison of a BigDecimal. Garth -- 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
