Hi Stuart, On 2011-01-15, at 4:06 PM, Stuart Halloway wrote:
>> In my experience, errors are the problem and we should be avoiding them, >> almost at all costs. > > This debate always starts by conflating three things into two, and then goes > downhill from there. :-( It isn't > > (a) safe/slow vs. > (b) unsafe/fast. That's how us outsiders are left to look at it. > > It is > > (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 > > *unifiable: able to deliver same semantics for primitives and objects This doesn't really help me understand your argument. It looks to me as though Clojure is trying to steer itself through the middle of something. The trouble is that I don't know where the edges of the middle are. Maybe it is just a documentation problem. But I'd also suggest that there's a bit of a sales job necessary here. > > We have thought about this quite a bit, Nobody doubts that, certainly I don't. And I'm not trying to minimise or dismiss what you've done. And I'm not claiming that I've thought about it better or more or deeper. But I do have concerns and I don't see them being addressed, and I'd like it if they weren't minimised either. Maybe my concerns are completely addressed. Maybe not. I don't know, and I'd like to be convinced. > and an argument from one axis only (e.g safe/unsafe) that doesn't even > mention some of the other axes is not likely to be persuasive. Would be more > interesting to see a new axis we haven't thought of... Numerical correctness, for some of us, is an overwhelming issue. This is purely from experience... bad experience... 30+ years of bad experience in my case :-) From my point of view, the approach Clojure is taking isn't persuasive, not to say it couldn't be made persuasive. I think I did add what might be considered an additional axis. Syntax. Specifically what annotations are needed and for what purpose. I don't think this should be dismissed out of hand. Cheers, Bob > > Stu > > Stuart Halloway > Clojure/core > http://clojure.com > > > -- > 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 ---- Bob Hutchison Recursive Design Inc. http://www.recursive.ca/ weblog: http://xampl.com/so -- 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
