On Feb 25, 8:02 pm, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).
I'm fine with Stuart's interpretation. People need to resist their
urge to superimpose types that don't exist on the return values of
functions. There is only ISeq. And some function might return one or
not.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
