On Feb 16, 2009, at 20:23, Rich Hickey wrote: > It seems the Sequence/ISeq dichotomy was a sticking point for many. > After some tweaking, I've been able to get rid of Sequence entirely, > SVN 1284+ in lazy branch. This is source compatible with 1282 (first/ > rest/next), except that sequence? no longer exists - go back to seq?. > > New docs here: > > http://clojure.org/lazy > > Let me know if that is simpler.
I'd say yes. The remaining weird feature is the seq function and its use. The name suggests that it converts to a seq, which is in fact what it used to do. Now it converts to a seq unless the resulting seq would be empty. For an empty seq, it actually converts a seq to a non-seq! Would it be possible to make an empty seq test as false? One could then do away with the conversion to seq in tests completely, and seq could always return a seq, including an empty one. Of course, this would imply that a logical test on a seq evaluates its first element, but that doesn't look unreasonable to me. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
