On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:24 PM, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The overflow check is the same whether you react to an overflow by >> boxing the result or react to an overflow by throwing an exception! > > It's not the same at all. > If you box the result all further arithmetic computations slows down. You > cannot preserve the primitive path.
All further arithmetic computations slow down on the one hand; halt with an exception if the opposite choice is made. Slow-but-works is usually preferred to broken. > However there are other breaking changes in 1.3 that have far greater > implications for real Clojure apps than this change - like dynamic binding. > This affects a much large range of Clojure apps, libraries and tools. I don't know how common dynamic binding is in application code. It tends to be in library code more often, which is a smaller number of changes to make. Plus, the dynamic binding changes have a rationale behind them that actually seems to me to make the tradeoff potentially worth it. -- 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
