On Oct 11, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote: > Maybe I'm a bit bold, but shouldn't a 1.3 user be aware, that his limits do > overflow and specify a bigint to begin with?
Consider someone who passes in a regular integer to the `roughly` checker. It's near the overflow boundary. That plus the delta happens to be beyond the boundary. An overflow exception, even though her calculations stay strictly within the fenceposts of the chip designers and their evil plan to distract programmers from discovering the World of Ease because they're spending all their time screwing around with arithmetic boundaries. An unlikely case, to be sure, but I believe this kind of fit-and-finish is important. ----- Brian Marick, Artisanal Labrador Now working at http://path11.com Contract programming in Ruby and Clojure Occasional consulting on Agile -- 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
