notice that there's a very successful crowdsource fund going toward
core.typed <http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/typed-clojure>, perhaps this
static checker will be a reality this time next year.
On Monday, September 30, 2013 5:55:01 PM UTC-4, stuart....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi splondik
Thanks for the comment. The current behaviour is sensible for the code
branch where the second argument is the same length or shorter than the
first (see my first post). It is the other branch that does not do what you
would expect. My real issue though is how the behaviour changes
dramatically
Idiomatic was probably the wrong word since we don't want to arbitrarily
restrict options in a dynamic language. In this case where the results are
unexpected and inconsistent in other cases, would this check be acceptable?
On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:55:05 PM UTC-4, splondike
ime
per run).
Would this approach (probably with some more rigorous performance
profiling) be something likely to be included in the language, is it
idiomatic?
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:01:10 PM UTC-4, John Hume wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2013 1:47 PM, "splondike" >
>
I just got burned by the clojure.set/difference function (v 1.5.1) wherein
I had in error passed a vector for the second argument. This causes
inconsistent results depending on the relative lengths of the arguments.
That is, as soon as the second argument becomes longer than the first we
get a
