I tried asking this on twitter and wasn't getting my question across in 140 characters so I decided to post here. I'm curious as to why Clojure as a language hasn't abstracted/hidden all of Java's classes and created their own in the Clojure. namespace.
For example Big Ints are of type and class Clojure.lang.BigInt. user=> (type 10000N) clojure.lang.BigInt user=> (class 10000N) clojure.lang.BigInt Although a Long is a java.lang.Long both in type and class user=> (class 1) java.lang.Long user=> (type 1) java.lang.Long Similarly a character is of type java.long.Character user=> (type \a) java.lang.Character user=> (class \a) java.lang.Character Again with Java strings user=> (class "string") java.lang.String user=> (type "string") java.lang.String Although a Strings have a few functions in the clojure.strings namespace which can be accessed. Why wouldn't clojure.lang.string be the type? And somehow inherit/remap all of the java string functions? Was this design decision made during the languages conception to clean up the clojure namespaces? Or is there another reason that I'm not seeing? -- 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.
