Hi Chas, someone specifying (roughly 9223372036854775804 5) also accepts 9223372036854775808 as a possible value. So she has to at least think a tiny bit about overflow. However you are right that she should not be concerned about the specific implementation of roughly.
So the library has several options: Since the numeric changes in this area are breaking changes, the library has to either a) take overflow policy into its contract, or b) provide a 1.3 version with +' or c) provide an overflow save implementation (cf. my email to Brian) if possible. Which option is best depends on the single case, I fancy. Sincerely Meikel -- 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
