On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Stuart Halloway > 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 understand why it is useful to use the noun "seq" to mean the forced non-nil non-empty sequences that are returned by the seq function. But I think it's going to be very confusing if you use the term seq to mean something different than what "seq?" tests for. So I'd vote for either Stuart's interpretation, or changing the name "seq?" to something like "sequence?" (which I think it was at one stage of development). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
