On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:45 PM, nathanmarz <nathan.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > But Clojure is already inconsistent. ints and Integers in interop are > treated differently. The only way to make Clojure consistent is to > either:
as David said "Clojure now only has 64bit primitives". an Integer is not a primitive, an int is. > > 1. Box ints as Integers > 2. Always convert Integers to Longs. > > I'm not sure on the feasibility of #2. > > I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I really don't see the benefit of > boxing primitive ints as Longs given how Integer objects are treated. > Right now, if you obtain an Integer object via interop and want it to > be compatible with Clojure's regular numerics, you still have to > manually convert that Integer object into a Long. What I'm proposing > is that you treat primitive ints obtained via interop the exact same > way, which avoids the weird type issues that I ran into. > > -Nathan > > > On Oct 20, 12:26 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Such a change would be make Clojure's numeric design inconsistent. You keep >> saying that Clojure is changing the types - that's probably not the right >> way to look at it. >> >> It's a semantic change, Clojure now only has 64bit primitives - the same way >> that JavaScript only has doubles. >> >> Prior to the 1.3 change, the semantics gave you a free lunch around >> primitive ints in the interop scenario. Now you have be explicit just as you >> do with pretty much any kind of Java interop. >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM, nathanmarz <nathan.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Oops, I meant "Clojure should box primitive ints as Integers." :-) >> >> > On Oct 20, 12:15 pm, nathanmarz <nathan.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > Thanks, that clarifies the behavior. Regardless though, at some point >> > > the "int" is becoming a "Long" which is a change of type. I'm arguing >> > > that Clojure should box primitive ints as Longs. >> >> > > Stu, I wouldn't say Clojure's behavior makes it "just work". For >> > > example, if I obtained by number using Integer/valueOf, then Clojure >> > > will not change the Integer to a Long and will not prevent me from >> > > putting it in a collection. It's confusing that Integer/valueOf will >> > > stay an Integer in Clojure-land, and Integer/parseInt will become a >> > > Long in Clojure-land. >> >> > > The use case I'm interested in here is just this one point of Java >> > > interop: what Clojure does with primitive ints that it gets from a >> > > Java object (as far as I can tell, this is the only way to get a >> > > primitive int in Clojure 1.3). I think it's better that Clojure be >> > > consistent in its treatment of Integer objects and primitive ints by >> > > not changing the types on you. >> >> > > -Nathan >> >> > > On Oct 20, 10:19 am, Justin Kramer <jkkra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > Oops, I elided a little too much. Need a method with an Object >> > signature to >> > > > distinguish Integer from int: >> >> > > > (definterface IPrimitiveTester >> > > > (getType [^int x]) >> > > > (getType [^long x]) >> > > > ;; etc >> > > > (getType [^Object x])) >> >> > > > (deftype PrimitiveTester [] >> > > > IPrimitiveTester >> > > > (getType [this ^int x] :int) >> > > > (getType [this ^long x] :long) >> > > > ;; etc >> > > > (getType [this ^Object x] :object)) >> >> > > > (defmacro primitive-type [x] >> > > > `(.getType (PrimitiveTester.) ~x)) >> >> > > > (comment >> >> > > > user=> (primitive-type (Integer. 5)) >> > > > :object >> > > > user=> (primitive-type (Integer/parseInt "5")) >> > > > :int >> >> > > > ) >> >> > > > On Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:13:03 PM UTC-4, Justin Kramer wrote: >> >> > > > > Here's a quick proof using an interface-based primitive detector: >> >> > > > > (definterface IPrimitiveTester >> > > > > (getType [^int x]) >> > > > > (getType [^long x]) >> > > > > ;; other types elided >> > > > > ) >> >> > > > > (deftype PrimitiveTester [] >> > > > > IPrimitiveTester >> > > > > (getType [this ^int x] :int) >> > > > > (getType [this ^long x] :long) >> > > > > ;; other types elided >> > > > > ) >> >> > > > > (defmacro primitive-type [x] >> > > > > `(.getType (PrimitiveTester.) ~x)) >> >> > > > > (comment >> >> > > > > user=> (primitive-type 5) ;unboxed >> > > > > :long >> > > > > user=> (primitive-type (Integer/parseInt "5")) ;unboxed >> > > > > :int >> > > > > user=> (class (Integer/parseInt "5")) ;boxed >> > > > > java.lang.Long >> >> > > > > ) >> >> > > > > Justin >> >> > -- >> > 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 -- And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good— Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? -- 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
