<< Back to previous view

[CLJ-666] Add support for Big* numeric types to Reflector Created: 29/Oct/10  Updated: 27/Jul/13

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Major
Reporter: Chas Emerick Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: None

Attachments: Text File 0001-Add-Big-support-to-Reflector.patch     Text File 0001-Add-Big-support-to-Reflector-Updated.patch    
Patch: Code and Test

 Description   

This should work as expected, for example:

(Integer. 1N)

Probably for BigInt, BigInteger, and BigDecimal.

Method to look at is c.l.Reflector.paramArgTypeMatch, per Rich in irc.



 Comments   
Comment by Colin Jones [ 30/Mar/11 11:52 PM ]

Questions posed on the clojure-dev list around how this impacts bit-shift-left: http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev/browse_thread/thread/2191cbf0048d8ca6

Comment by Alexander Taggart [ 31/Mar/11 12:42 AM ]

Patch on CLJ-445 fixes this as well.

Comment by Colin Jones [ 27/Apr/11 4:41 PM ]

This patch fails a test around bit-shifting a BigInt: `(bit-shift-left 1N 10000)`. The reason is that the patch changes the dispatch of (BigInt, Long) from (Object, Object) to (long, int).

Clearly this can't be applied (unless another change makes it possible), but I'm putting it up as a start of the conversation.

Comment by Alexander Taggart [ 27/Apr/11 5:26 PM ]

My comment from the mailing list:

If the test breaks it likely means Numbers.shiftLeft(long,int) was
selected over Numbers.shiftLeft(Object,Object). Given that 1N is an
Object (one that can exceed the size of a long), the method selection
is incorrect, thus the patch is broken.


The suggestion of "simply" modifying paramArgTypeMatch is not sufficient since the mechanism for preferring one method over another lives in Compiler, and isn't smart enough to make these sorts of decisions.

Comment by Christopher Redinger [ 28/Apr/11 9:21 AM ]

Considering moving this out of Release.next - soliciting comments from Chas.

Comment by Chas Emerick [ 28/Apr/11 9:41 AM ]

I'm afraid I don't have any particular insight into the issues involved at this point. I ran into the problem originally noted a while back, and opened the ticket at Rich's suggestion. I'm sorry if the text of the ticket led anyone down unfruitful paths…

Comment by Luke VanderHart [ 29/Apr/11 10:01 AM ]

The issues relating to bitshift are moot since the decision was made that bit-shifts are only for 32/64 bit values.

Still a valid issue, but de-prioritized as per Rich.

Comment by Alex Ott [ 25/Jun/12 7:19 AM ]

Modified version of original patch

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 26/Jun/12 1:38 PM ]

Alex, would you mind attaching it with a unique file name? I know that JIRA lets us create multiple attachments with the same file name, and I know we can tell them apart by date and the account of the person who uploaded the attachment, but giving them the same name only seems to invite confusion.

Comment by Alex Ott [ 28/Jun/12 1:00 PM ]

Renamed updated patch to unique name

Generated at Tue Sep 16 08:32:51 CDT 2014 using JIRA 4.4#649-r158309.