>>> It's list? that isn't.
>>
>> That's not strictly true
>
> Are you calling me a liar?
Not a liar; just misinformed, as I hope I demonstrated by citing the
docs. I don't see any value in continuing this thread of the
discussion, but I wanted to clear that up.
> 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?
> %))).
As Rich pointed out, seq? is what you want.
user=> (seq? [])
false
user=> (cons 5 [])
(5)
user=> (seq? *1)
true
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
