Well, changing the behaviour of 'if' is not the only way to fix the problem (and it's impossible because of backward compatibility anyway). In my mind, more realistic solution would be: > > 1. Clearly state in the section on interop that clojure, unlike java, doesn't treat 'false' and (Boolean. false) as equal objects. 2. Clearly state in the doc of '=' that it should not be used for testing equality of booleans, since it could lead to confusing results. 3. Emphasis that 'true?' and 'false?' should be used instead of (= x false).
Then typical expierence of the newcomer can be changed from => (def x (Boolean. false)) #'x => (if x :t :f) :t ; WTF?! => (= (Boolean. false) false) true ; WHAT...??? ** going to ask a question on the google group to => (def x (Boolean. false)) #'x => (if x :t :f) :t ; WTF?! => (= (Boolean. false) false) WARNING: false? should be used instead, see also: http://... => (false? x) false ; hmmm... => (if (boolean x) :t :f) :f ; ok, it's not very convenient, but they probably have a reason for that. I can live with it. ** continues to write his program -- 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
