2022-12-11 clojure-dev | Clojure Slack Archive

Wondering if this behavior change is considered a bug, undesired, or irrelevant:

Clojure 1.11.1
user=> (drop 1.5 [1 2 3])
(3)
user=> (drop 1.5 (seq "abc"))
(\c)

vs.

Clojure 1.12.0-alpha1
user=> (drop 1.5 [1 2 3])
(2 3)
user=> (drop 1.5 (seq "abc"))
(\b \c)

That seems to be a different discussion. Range supports all number types.

What's the use case for non-int in range again?

Ranges of non ints?

oh duh, yes, that's kind of obvious

Range makes a series of numbers from start number to end number, stepping by numbers

I would consider non integers to be undefined behavior

It would also seem that if you tried to define the behavior you might go down an intractable rat hole.

I was messing with porting this (`IDrop`) to ClojureScript and that WIP implementation definitely exhibits undefined behavior.

cljs.user=> (drop 1.5 (seq "abc"))
(nil nil)

There have been cases in the past where these sorts of things have been pushed to have ClojureScript match Clojure, where reasonable, perf-wise.

Cool. I won't report a bug against 1.12.0-alpha1.

Clojurians Log v2