At this point test-clojure doesn't generate any new failures or errors (except the old 'mod' function failures). Coverage is still relatively small, but (cycle []) bug and case of (reverse []) were caught with its help when rewriting tests :-)
Thanks for all the fixes! Frantisek On Feb 18, 8:02 pm, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, Frantisek Sodomka <fsodo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > How should I say it... It just didn't look "symmetrical" to me. > > > So, basically, there is a difference between functions returning > > sequences - depending on if they are lazy or eager. Hmm... > > > user=> (reverse []) > > nil > > user=> (if (reverse []) true false) > > false > > user=> (if (seq (reverse [])) true false) > > false > > > user=> (lazy-seq nil) > > () > > user=> (seq (lazy-seq nil)) > > nil > > user=> (if (lazy-seq nil) true false) > > true > > user=> (if (seq (lazy-seq nil)) true false) > > false > > > As long as I remember which function is lazy and which one is eager, I > > should be fine then. > > > Just wanted to really understand it. > > It shouldn't be that subtle. Sequence functions shouldn't return nil > unless they are variants of seq/next. I've fixed reverse and sort to > return () when passed empty colls - SVN 1294. > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
