I didn't understand what you meant by > where seq?, as distinct from seq, does not check whether there is anything > in the sequence.
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:31:15 PM UTC+5:30, Matching Socks wrote: > > Gary might be on to something. The immediate context is > > (if (seq? form) > (with-meta `(~(first form) ~@(next form) ~x) (meta form)) > (list form x))] > > > where seq?, as distinct from seq, does not check whether there is anything > in the 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 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.
