On Feb 4, 9:03 am, MikeM <michael.messini...@invista.com> wrote:
> > (if [] true false)
>
> > I'd hate to lose the ability to distinguish between an empty
> > collection and nothing.
>
> As a trade-off to allow nil-punning, you could stipulate the use of
> coll? in the above situation:
> (if (coll? []) true false) => true
> This seems less burdensome - fewer cases where I'd need to do this vs
> (if (seq s) ...
I'm not seriously considering this. As I said, 'if' can't be burdened
with this kind of a check.
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
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
