My understanding of == is that it is intended to establish numerical equivalence across types. But I think that basic contract fails with BigDecimal. For instance,
(== 1M 1.0M) ; => false because the scale properties of these numbers are different. So then of course: [(== 1 1N 1.0) (== 1 1N 1.0 1M) (== 1 1N 1.0 1.0M) (== 1 1.0 1N 1.0M)] ; => [true true true false] and [(== 1.0M 1.0) (== 1.0 1) (== 1 1N) (== 1N 1.0M)] ; => [true true true false] I find your lack of transitivity (and commutativity) ... disturbing. The issue is that there are two notions of equality for BigDecimal, equals and compareTo, where equals compares value *and* scale while compareTo compares numerically. The other numeric types use equals for equivalence, quite reasonably. But in class BigDecimalOps in clojure/lang/Numbers.java, I propose that public boolean equiv(Number x, Number y){ return toBigDecimal(x).equals(toBigDecimal(y)); } should be public boolean equiv(Number x, Number y){ return toBigDecimal(x).compareTo(toBigDecimal(y)) == 0; } to give the proper sense of equivalence. I haven't had a chance yet to recompile with this change to test it, but we do have (zero? (. 1.0M (compareTo 1M))) ; => true (zero? (. 1.0000M (compareTo 1M))) ; => true (zero? (. 1.000M (compareTo 1.0M))) ; => true as desired. Reactions? Best, Chris -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.