On Dec 5, 10:28 am, "Arie van Wingerden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
There is class, and, more useful, instance?
Rich
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
