> Were you thinking of what's now called "next" and used to be called "rest"?
No. > > Why did you expect nil from rest in this case? I expect: (rest [1]) -> () (rest []) -> nil Starting with the new lazier branch, we have a concept of an empty sequence. So the rest of a singleton yields an empty sequence. But asking for the rest of an empty sequence is very different. Clojure should generate a different kind of value to let you know that you asked for the rest of something that doesn't really have a rest. Just as (first []) yields nil, so should (rest []), IMO. I can't offhand think of a way that the current behavior would break something, but it seems quite illogical to me to say that the rest of an empty sequence is the empty sequence. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
