> Hello Luc, > > In all fairness I don't see how converting ints to Integers returned > by class methods would break the abstraction. If you start talking > about portability of Clojure code, then Long is as portable as > Integer is. (In general they are not.)
It's simpler to use one representation to port the core. You can choose the fastest/efficient one. You do not have to carry all these intermediate types with you.
The day a 128 bits primitive type become available, there's little changes to do to support that. If you keep mixed types, that adds another one to the babel tower.
The problem is not to choose between ints or longs, it has to do with carrying all these intermediate types. Frankly aside from interop, how many are using short ints in Clojure ? That's a leftover from the PDP-11 era.
> > Could you explain your position on the fact that shorts get converted > to Short? Why is it not possible to do the same for ints?
This should disappear. I think all the small primitive types including ints should be promoted to long except when doing an interop call. Rich can explain why it's been kept. Maybe a question of priority/effort or something else.
> > I don't think that there was anyone in this thread that would suggest > keeping 32bit math in Clojure. For what it's worth, Integer can be > converted to Long first time it is used in any computation. >
That is unnecessary overhead, again lets split boxed values from primitive types. If you compute in Clojure, keeping primitive ints/shorts/bytes around has no value. You end up having type conversion to do depending on what is specified in the expression.
When doing an interop call, this is when you need to be specific. Elsewhere I see no value in keeping this scheme.
This way of thinking about primitive types has been sticking around for at least 35 years carrying 64/32/16/8 bit unsigned/signed int values. Maybe it's time we toss this away.
I have been writing a couple of hundred thousand lines of assembly code in my professional life and I understand this model. Of course when you deal with hardware in a device driver you need these things, but in Clojure ?
And with today's hardware, why stick with these data types ? To reduce memory footprint ? Ha ! Ha !, I used to work on computers with 256K of physical memory. This concern was legitimate in this prehistoric era. But today ?
If you need bit manipulation in Clojure, better write a lib for this than mangling with these data types.
> Cheers, > Ivan. > > > On 23 October 2011 17:16, Luc Prefontaine > <lprefo...@softaddicts.ca>wrote: > > > CON1 - I'm buying your argumentation about consistency in Clojure > > maps and fixing them. Integer OBJECTS (as opposed to int primitive) > > should be handle as objects consistenly, not as primitive values > > promoted to long. > > > > CON2, CON3 and CON4 - No way, the current design choice is the good > > one. > > > > So many languages have been plagued with numbers of different > > sizes/formats for ints and floating point values, > > it's not a direction that Clojure should follow. > > These distinct types are source of many problems (overflow handling, > > precision problems, ...). > > > > The need for Clojure to support these things is similar to calling > > assembler > > from C. You matter about bytes, shorts and similar things at the > > frontier, when it's time to call a low level service, you need to > > be able to pass these values. > > > > By no means this implies that you have to support them in your > > language runtime. > > It complects (;) everything including computations and makes your > > runtime much more harder to port. > > > > It's an interop centric thing and interop is by essence not > > portable. It does not belong to the core of Clojure. It's better to > > rely on cast operators > > to call interop than to expect Clojure to box numeric values > > according to some interop > > convention that may vary according to the platform Clojure runs on. > > > > Luc P. > > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 07:19:41 -0400 > > Paul Stadig <pa...@stadig.name> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Stuart Halloway > > > <stuart....@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > I am dropping off this thread now. At this point I think it > > > > would be more useful for me (or someone) to expand the notes > > > > about numerics into better documentation, rather than > > > > continuing this rambling point-by-point treatment without > > > > getting all of the considerations into play at once. I hope to > > > > get that done by conj. > > > > > > > > > So you are still thinking that the current behavior is OK and just > > > needs to be documented better? Or are you saying that we need to > > > collect the various pros and cons to decide whether the current > > > behavior should change or remain the same? > > > > > > Having reviewed the thread there is lots of confusion, but from > > > the points made it seems clear to me that the behavior should > > > change. > > > > > > CON (The "we should box ints as Longs" (or "we should keep things > > > as they are") camp): > > > 1) If we box ints as Integers it will break Clojure's collections > > > (Stu Halloway) > > > 2) Boxing ints as Integers would make Clojure's design > > > inconsistent (David Nolen) > > > 3) Clojure now only has 64-bit primitives (David Nolen/Kevin > > > Downey) 4) If 32-bit ints are allowed to exist, the Clojure's > > > numeric operators would have to handle them (David Nolen) > > > > > > CON1 is a bug in PersistentHashMap, and I opened a Jira bug for > > > it ( http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-861). > > > CON2 is false. The way primitives are boxed for interop doesn't > > > and shouldn't have any effect on Clojure's design as such. This > > > is a discussion about interop consistency, and if you look at the > > > PRO section you will see Clojure is already inconsistent with > > > respect to interop. Nathan and others are arguing that it should > > > be made consistent. CON3 is false. 32-bit primitives do exist in > > > Clojure (at least Java Clojure), they are just not the optimized > > > case. They may get immediately converted to longs or boxed in > > > some way, but we cannot deny their existence, especially around > > > interop. CON4 Again, 32-bit integers do exist, and are already > > > handled by the numeric operators. When you compile a function > > > with primitive args, Clojure also generates a method that takes > > > Objects. If you pass in anything other than a long it gets boxed, > > > cast to a java.lang.Number, has its longValue method called, and > > > that value gets passed to the primitive arg version. This is slow > > > (as expected) because you are not using the optimized case > > > (64-bit primitives). Absolutely none of that would have to > > > change/get slower because ints were boxed as Integers instead of > > > Longs. > > > > > > I think the problem with all of these CONs is that they confuse > > > boxing for interop with either a bug in PersistentHashMap, or fast > > > primitive maths, and neither of those has anything to do with how > > > ints are boxed. > > > > > > PRO (The "we should box ints as Integers" camp): > > > 1) Clojure is inconsistent in how it boxes primitive data (Chris > > > Perkins) Clojure 1.3: > > > > > > (class (Long/parseLong "1")) => java.lang.Long > > > (class (Integer/parseInt "1")) => java.lang.Long > > > (class (Short/parseShort "1")) => java.lang.Short > > > (class (Byte/parseByte "1")) => java.lang.Byte > > > (class (Float/parseFloat "1")) => java.lang.Float > > > (class (Double/parseDouble "1")) => java.lang.Double > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Luc P. > > > > ================ > > The rabid Muppet > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Clojure" group. > > To post to this group, send email to clo...@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+u...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > > >