On Jan 13, 2:59 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It raises a question, though -- how much functionality should a > function provide to be worth making everyone who reads the code learn > the new vocabulary? I've written each of these inline when I've > needed them. Are they better as idioms or functions?
I can't comment on which ones I would use: I'm too new to Clojure for that. But I think a rich utility library is good, so long as it's clear from a function's name and parameters what it does. There are only a few in the collection above whose purpose I don't understand; for most I see it easily. One question about the collection: > (defn chunk "Lazily break s into chunks of length n (or less, for the > final chunk)." > [n s] > (when (seq s) > (lazy-cons (take n s) > (chunk n (drop n s))))) Should that "seq" be "seq?". If not, why not? The general question it raises for _me_ is this: why is such a basic, useful and generally applicable function like 'chunk not included in the core? Or 'random-element? Final comment: I think collection parameters should be named "coll", not "s", so that the docs are consistent with the core functions. Gavin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
