> All sequences are represented by (chains of) (possibly lazy) seqs, of > type ISeq. So yes, sequence/seq(noun)/ISeq are technically synonyms, > but [1]
Great. > [1] In practice, a sequence fn (like map et al) may return an empty > sequence, while seq/next will instead return a (forced) thing with a > first, or nil, and I'd use the terms sequence for the former and seq > for the latter. I believe it would be simpler to leave out this footnote. In my perfect world, seq/ISeq/sequence are synonyms, and nillability is a property only of *functions*: seq and next. I realize that this breaks with past usage. Rich, I will treat your next reply as a final ruling for the book. :-) Stu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
