On 1 Sep, 2011, at 10:35 , Alan Malloy wrote: > I don't see any reason for it to include !=, which can be implemented > as (not (= a b)). Conversely, <= could be implemented as (or (< a b) > (= a b)), but if either of those is expensive operations he gives you > a chance to do a more-optimized <=.
Right, and that's also the reason why there should be not=, with a default implementation that does (not (= ...)). It can be expensive to establish equality for a complex data structure, whereas inequality can be ascertained at the first difference encountered. Along the same lines, <= has a default implementation that does (not (> ...)), but it is possible to provide specific optimized implementation for any argument type. So to respond to Sam's original question: >> Thanks for such a useful set of libraries. Oh, and whilst we're on the >> subject, is there any reason why generic.comparison doesn't include != I have simply forgotten to include it. Konrad. -- 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
