Welcome! Please see the
About
page for a little more info on how this works.
GitHub Login
All Activity
Questions
Unanswered
Tags
Ask a Question
About
Ask a Question
Consider moving int behavior to unchecked-int + clearer docstrings for limitations of other coercions (long etc)
0
votes
asked
Oct 23, 2016
in
ClojureScript
by
jira
problem
jira
Please
log in
or
register
to add a comment.
Please
log in
or
register
to answer this question.
1
Answer
0
votes
answered
Jun 26, 2019
by
jira
Reference:
https://clojure.atlassian.net/browse/CLJS-1833
(reported by dnolen)
Please
log in
or
register
to add a comment.
Welcome to Clojure Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from members of the Clojure community.
Related questions
Contrary to their docstrings, long and unchecked-long are not identical to int
*unchecked-math* true does not work for (long) fn
Use unchecked-*-int functions for real 32-bit math
clojure.lang.MapEntry violates .equals and .hashCode contracts of HashMap.Entry; leads to non-reflexive .equals, etc.
Windows version of tools.deps fails to launch Java if classpath is too long
Categories
All categories
Clojure
(1.3k)
ClojureScript
(582)
ClojureCLR
(22)
Contrib libs
(680)
Tools
(34)
Meta
(16)
Other
(89)
...
