On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vinzent <ru.vinz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I agree: you cannot make it work for each and every JVM language, so >> the current simplistic behavior is just fine. >> > Yeah, but my question about 'if' and equality remains open. > Not really, your example is trying to assign some special meaning to a Java class whose value happens to be "false". Using ".equals" equivalence in something as primitive as an if statement would not only be inefficient, but lead to some really strange consequences, since equals is override-able. (deftype Bob [] Object (equals [this o] true)) (.equals a true) true (.equals a false) true (= (Bob.) false) true (= (Bob.) true) true ;; What should this do? (if (Bob.) :true :false) :true -- 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
