On Jan 29, 5:48 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the drawback of the (some #{:y} [:x :y :z]) idiom?
Too hard to understand at first, which is why I wrote seq-utils/
includes?.
But a note to all: I've hardly used includes? since I wrote it. I
found that if I was testing for the presence/absence of elements in a
collection, then I was usually better off using a set in the first
place.
Most languages don't include sets as standard types, so we don't think
of them. But whenever you have a collection in which order doesn't
matter, a set is often better than a vector or list.
-Stuart Sierra
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
