On Jun 28, 11:52 am, Handkea fumosa <hfum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 1:49 am, Richard Newman <holyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> cons is acting according to its documentation.
>
> > > It's list? that isn't.
>
> > That's not strictly true
>
> Are you calling me a liar?
>
> > Is there a reason why you are testing for listiness rather than for
> > some other property, like Sequential? It's generally considered good
> > form in Clojure to program against the native abstractions (such as
> > sequences) rather than particular concrete types.
>
> It's for a code-manipulating macro. It needs to treat () colls
> differently from [] ones, in particular. I note that sequential?
> returns true for vectors.
>
> While it starts with inputs like '(foo bar (baz quux)) it takes those
> apart and puts them back together again in various ways, sometimes
> using cons to prepend an item. It also sometimes uses map, whose
> return values also fail list?.
>
> If you don't think list? should be true for all () collections, or at
> least all finite ones, perhaps the core should contain a function that
> is? We have set?, vector?, and map? for [], #{}, and {} collections
> respectively that exactly distinguish them from others. But for ()
> collections we only seem to have #(and (sequential? %) (not (vector?
> %))).
seq? is what you want.
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
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
