On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In Clojure 1.2: >> >> (type (bigint 2)) => java.math.BigInteger >> >> In Clojure 1.3: >> >> (type (bigint 2)) => clojure.lang.BigInt >> (type 2N) => clojure.lang.BigInt > > What the devil? Why was this done? Seems like wheel reinvention to me.
Chas has already pointed you at the rationale / discussion but I'm a bit surprised you reacted as if this was news - the numeric changes in 1.3 have been discussed at great length in a number of threads here dating back over a year (and you, yourself, were active in at least one such discussion back in December 2010). > And format should account for it. I can see arguments on both sides. format is clearly documented to be a thin wrapper around java.lang.String.format so by that measure we shouldn't expect it to handle Clojure's BigInt. OTOH, it's reasonable to expect BigInt to behave "just like" any other regular numeric type in Clojure and therefore Clojure's own format function should treat BigInt as valid for %d. Might be worth opening a JIRA ticket for enhancing format, yes? -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.getrailo.com/ "Perfection is the enemy of the good." -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
