Thank you, Alex. I'll check them out.
~Timothy Dean
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Alex Miller <a...@puredanger.com> wrote:
> We had this discussion at length in several places (clojure mailing list,
> clojure-dev mailing list, reddit probably) over a year ago when any? was
> added in 1.9.0-alpha10. Search the archives for the prior discussions, I
> don't have time right now to re-summarize it all.
>
>
> On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:56:11 AM UTC-5, Timothy Dean wrote:
>>
>> If the ship has sailed, why, then, the ship has sailed. I only send this
>> now because I'd already written it before I saw your reply, Alex.
>>
>> I do not think `any?` is a "gigantic" mistake, though I do think it is
>> confusing. I expect to see a few some?/any? bugs from beginners. `some?`
>> and `any? essentially represent two English synonyms, both defined in the
>> same namespace, each of which represents a check for existence, under two
>> competing ontological frameworks.
>>
>> The bandit stopped me, asking, "Do you have Anything?"
>> "I do," I said, "please don't hurt me."
>> "If you have Something, hand it over!"
>> I handed him nothing.
>> "You said you had Something!"
>> "No, you asked me if I had Anything!"
>> "Just hand it over!"
>> As he was irate and carried a big stick, I gave up and handed him Nothing.
>>
>> Ultimately the source of confusions such as this arise from the fact that
>> Clojure is a language with a concrete token (Something) representing
>> Nothing. some/any just compounds the confusion. But this problem arises in
>> certain philosophies of ontology, and there already exists a distinction
>> that strikes me as being quite natural in common English and a good fit for
>> Clojure and spec: the distinction between something/nothing and
>> presence/absence.
>>
>> I would propose `present?` as the name to replace `any?`.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> But if the ship has sailed, then onward ho! Clojure will still be a great
>> tool.
>>
>> ~Timothy Dean
>>
>> On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-6, Alex Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> This ship has sailed.
>>>
>>> On Oct 6, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Alan Thompson <cloo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 Dev" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to clojure-dev...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to cloju...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev.
>>> 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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/clojure/tPiW2DGHTN0/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@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.
