How about next-seq or rest-seq? On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 3:34 PM, James G. Sack (jim) <jgs...@san.rr.com> wrote: > > Rich Hickey wrote: >>.. >> The second option is to choose the best possible names, and deal with >> some short term pain in porting and confusion. I think the best names >> are: >> >> ;item >> (first x) >> >> ;collection of remaining items, possibly empty >> (rest x) >> >> ;seq on next item, or nil if none >> (next x) > > (I would say "seq-on-remainder-of-collection") > > I really like the first/rest decomposition concept. first (if exists) is > an item, and rest is the remainder-of-whatever following the first. > > To me next connotes another item like the first, and that may be > misleading. So I do not think that next is a good name. > > Please allow me as an inexpert, relatively uninvolved reader to raise an > emperor's new clothes type question: why is there a need for next > anyway. Are there that many idioms or code internals that justify a > shortcut for (seq rest)? > > Regards, > ..jim > > > >
-- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
