Hi Rich, right. But still I think Meikel has got a valid point that a function would need to be defined for that.
I also wondered whether a kind of type? function would be appropriate. So (type? 3) would return integer etc. Arie 2008/12/5 Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On Dec 5, 9:03 am, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Mark McGranaghan wrote: > > > > > This is indeed the definition used in the clojure.contrib.pred > > > library: > > >http://github.com/kevinoneill/clojure-contrib/tree/master/src/clojure. > .. > > > > That's true. However, with Clojure now having a specific meaning for > > "atom" that's different from that of the larger Lisp world, I'm > > wondering if it would be a good idea to remove atom? from pred.clj. > > > > Feedback welcome. > > > > atom?/p is not one of strongest or best-named abstractions in older > Lisps. Maybe it made sense in a world with only one composite data > structure. Good riddance I say. > > Rich > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
