Performance. > why not change > < type compare functions do a compare on strings as > well? > > (defn > > ([x] true) > ([x y](if (string? x) > (. clojure.lang.Numbers (isPos (.compareTo x y))) > (. clojure.lang.Numbers (gt x y)))) > ([x y & more] > (if (> x y) > (if (next more) > (recur y (first more) (next more)) > (> y (first more))) > false))) > > (defn < > ([x] true) > ([x y](if (string? x) > (. clojure.lang.Numbers (isNeg (.compareTo x y))) > (. clojure.lang.Numbers (gt x y)))) > ([x y & more] > (if (< x y) > (if (next more) > (recur y (first more) (next more)) > (< y (first more))) > false))) > > > It's just cleaner so we can do things like: > > user=> (< "2010-06-11" "2010-11-01") > true > > user=> (< "Banana" "Apple") > false > > make sense? > > Notes: > * I ran a bunch of benchmarks, showing no real impact on performance. > * probably would need to include >= and <= too. > > -- > 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 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
