On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bob Hutchison <hutch-li...@recursive.ca> wrote: > 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.
Under the current proposal, you should never get an incorrect answer. You might get an error, though. It's a subtle difference, but this is the main reason why the developers don't see it as a "correctness issue". If your program runs, and gives you back an answer, it will be correct. If it crashes, you convert to the overflow version of arithmetic, or typecast some of your numbers to bigints, and you'll get the right answer. I think a lot of the argument from both sides boils down to how much you fear runtime crashes. -- 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
