Ok, I follow you now. That makes sense. Sort-of :) On the other hand, it's only inconsistent if you consider clojure's = to map to java's .equals method, but it does not:
user=> (clojure-version) "1.2.1" user=> (= 3 3.0) true user=> (.equals 3 3.0) false So it doesn't really violate the contract for java's Map, which tells us that if a.equals(b), then they must have the same hash, and so a and b cannot both be keys. If you think of clojure's = as a looser sort of equivalence, then it's not a problem. I think. In any case, the 1.3 behavior does feel weird in sometimes: user> (def i 3) #'user/i user> (def j 3.0) #'user/j user> (< i j) false user> (> i j) false user> (= i j) false OK, that kind-of freaks me out... :) - Chris -- 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
