Right, but the confusion stems from the fact that all sequences are not lists. I might just be really confused, but there seems to be some asymmetry:
=> (seq [1 2 3]) (1 2 3) => (seq '(1 2 3)) (1 2 3) => '(1 2 3) (1 2 3) => [1 2 3] [1 2 3] It seems that the output in the first two is driven by the fact that the value is a sequence (*not* a list), so there is parity in the syntax, but the second two its driven by the fact that it's a list or a vector, so there is not parity. Why is the syntax in the first two cases such that it just so happens to be the same as that seen when evaluating a list literal? The internal java representations for the first two cases differ, but they are unified over the fact they are seq. For a *print-length* of 2 I'd expect something like: => (seq [1 2 3]) <1 2 .... > => (seq '(1 2 3)) <1 2 .... > => '(1 2 3) (1 2 .... ) => [1 2 3] [1 2 .... ] Provided < and > are decent symbology for a printable version of a sequence (there's probably better.) On Jan 9, 8:44 pm, vogelrn <voge...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lists -are- sequences (except for the empty list). > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
