> (a) unsafe/incorrect value on overflow/fastest/unifiable* vs. > (b) safe/error on overflow/fast/unifiable vs. > (c) safe/promoting on overflow/slow/not-unifiable
If I understand correctly, the issue with auto-promotion is that we have to box the output of an operation even if it turns out to fit in a long, since the compiler must specify whether the result will be long or Object. This is probably a stupid question, but since Clojure is already testing for overflow in (b) to throw an exception, would it be possible to jump into an alternative (c)-type compilation of the function just-in-time to promote on overflow instead? It seems like this could achieve the performance of (b) while still allowing for auto-promotion (albeit perhaps with a performance hit in that case, code bloat, compromises about how many versions to compile, etc.). For what it's worth, I'm personally happy with the approach of the current alpha. -- 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
