> Then again, how often do you write code that might be > doing maths with numbers that big and not realise it? For that > matter, how often do you write code that might be doing maths with > numbers that big and not spend time thinking carefully about its > performance anyway?
This reminds me of a little joke: Cooper: Honey, will you please - what are the odds of the Russians attacking on a Thursday night? --The Man with One Red Shoe (1985) Having heard from various posters how reasonable it all is, and from Rich now necessary [1], I still have a feeling that the implications and consequences of the new semantics aren't well understood, and if anything, any points of real concerned are downplayed. I'll second Mark's concerns, above. Like others, I don't like to annotate and postquote my way to the semantics I want, but that may be the easy part. But I hope I'm wrong; I guess we'll see. [1] (in this thread http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/c8c850595c91cc11/8a4eee5ac4eab3f9?lnk=gst&q=autopromotion#8a4eee5ac4eab3f9) -- 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
