sure . . . I'm just impressed with how many things "just work", and this could be one more. Not enough args, but you know what I wanted it to mean. There's no ambiguity.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Timothy Pratley <timothyprat...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On Jan 13, 5:57 pm, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Instead of that being an error, why not overload the vector function so > that > > no args calls the version that returns the list. That seems like a good > > idea! I wonder if people will object. > > Actually in your case that would not work, because l2 can also be nil. > (nil) is a function call to nil, and you can't call nil either. > Ok so if nil were to implement a function that returned nil you would > be home free... > But really, isn't that just more confusing than the problem you are > trying to solve? > what's so bad about writing l2 instead of (l2)? > Anything in parenthesis is a function call. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
