I believe that one of Rich's stated purposes with the latest revision of the laziness branch was to get rid of some of the subtle differences between these terms after all the discussions about this. I think that with the new changes the intent is: seq (noun) = sequence = ISeq, i.e., anything you might get back from rest.
This is a bit counterintuitive, however, because you might expect that the noun seq should mean anything you can get back from the seq function (i.e., a nonempty ISeq or nil). However, the behavior of the seq? predicate implies that the noun seq is intended to be a synonym for ISeq. I tend to use the term seq-able to mean anything you can pass to the seq function without error. Anyway, that's my impression... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
