Just to get your gut feeling, do you think the implementation would involve bittwittling with the native number, using strings or using byte arrays?
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, David Nolen wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Olaf Delgado-Friedrichs > <olaf.d...@googlemail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > Thanks for the link! I didn't know that the Closure library contained an > > arbitrary precision type, but should have expected it. > > > > When you speak of performance, do you mean the extra cost of checking > > argument types for the arithmetic operators? I wonder if this could be > > addressed by introducing alternate operators +', -' and *' as in > Clojure, > > make these support the additional numeric types and leave the existing > > operators alone. This is certainly something that makes sense for me to > do > > in a library. > > > > In order to support the BigInt and Ratio literals, would I have to > modify > > the ClojureScript sources, or is it possible to extend emit-constant in > > "user space"? > > > > Olaf > > Sorry, forgot to follow up this. I haven't put any deep thought into > it so I can offer no implementation guidance. I think it will be > pretty challenging to get full Clojure JVM numeric semantics into > ClojureScript w/o impacting performance. > > It can probably be done but requires both a comprehensive design and > good implementation strategy. If someone wants to take it on ... > great! > > David > -- 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
