Before 1.9.0 is officially released, I would like to propose a revisit to
the semantic mismatch introduced by the *clojure.core/any? *function.
Many, many people are dissatisfied by the choice of *clojure.core/any?* to
be defined as *(constantly true)*, which is completely in conflict with
*clojure.core/not-any?* . After all, any logical person would
automatically assume that:
(= (not-any? args...) (not (any? args...))
for any set of legal arguments. This follows the well-established
tradition in Clojure of having negated pairs such as* if* vs *if-not*,
*when *vs *when-not*, *every? *vs* not-every?*, etc.
However, I can see that it is convenient to say something like this:
(s/fdef clojure.core/declare
:args (s/cat :names (s/* simple-symbol?))
:ret any?)
It seems a simple solution to the problem would be to just define some
keyword specs in place of the globally visible *any? *function. The
following example shows that we could define *:clojure.spec/pass-all *and
*:clojure.spec/pass-none* which would could serve as an exact replacement
for *any? *(& its negative).
(:require [clojure.spec.alpha :as s] ...)
(deftest demo
(s/def ::s/pass-all (constantly true))
(s/def ::s/pass-none (constantly false))
(is (s/valid? ::s/pass-all 5 ))
(is (s/valid? ::s/pass-all "joe" ))
(is (s/valid? ::s/pass-all { :blah 42 :blue 66 :hut! 'hut! }))
(is (not (s/valid? ::s/pass-none 5 ))))
Since 1.9.0 is not out yet, is not too late to avoid a permanent pollution
of the language with a gigantic mistake such as *any?*. At the very least,
the function could be moved to *clojure.spec/any?* from *clojure.core*. If
we insist on adding this blatant contradiction to *clojure.core*, we won't
even have the excuse of a committee to blame it on.
Alan Thompson
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Nathan Smutz <nsm...@gmail.com
<https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=nsm...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> Is there a Tricky Names for Nubies page?
> We might save some stack-overflow searches.
>
> In the spirit of Honest Trailers: if we named functions for what they do:
> or -> first-truthy
> some -> first-satisfying
> some? -> not-nil?
> any? -> return-true
>
> Are there others?
>
> --
> 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
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=clojure@googlegroups.com>
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
