Vinzent <ru.vinz...@gmail.com> writes: > That's interesting, thanks for your investigation! Then such decision > was clearly made because Java is not the only JVM language, just as > Luc said. For example, JRuby has its own class which wraps false: > http://jruby.org/apidocs/org/jruby/RubyBoolean.False.html Obviously, > it's impossible to implement checks like you made for each and every > jvm language, so the current behaviour is totally reasonable.
Oh, yeah. I've drawn the conclusion that it's simple to make the just discussed case of java.lang.Boolean non-surprising, and that it doesn't impact performance. But I totally neglected the fact that there are other languages on the JVM except for Java and Clojure. Scala also seems to have it's own scala.Boolean class for boxing primitive booleans. So I agree: you cannot make it work for each and every JVM language, so the current simplistic behavior is just fine. Bye, Tassilo -- 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
