On Jul 29, 3:45 pm, Chris Kent <cjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking exactly the same thing. It feels like there should be
> a better way than instance? ...Sequable. Unless there's a reason
> that's a bad idea.
>
There's some discussion here and the linked-to message:
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/msg/385098fabfcaad9b
Rich
>
> On Jul 27, 6:49 pm, Sean Devlin <francoisdev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rich,
>
> > There have been a few times in this thread that people have tried to
> > determine if a function was seqable, and used the following code
>
> > (seq? a-collection)
>
> > While this code is great for determining if a-collection is a
> > sequence, it is sometimes not what people want. Often the following
> > code is meant to be used:
>
> > (instance? clojure.lang.Seqable a-collection)
>
> > I speculate that many people have something like the following code in
> > their library collection:
>
> > (defn seqable?
> > "Returns true if (seq x) should work. That is, it tests if x
> > implements clojure.lang.Seqable"
> > [x]
> > (instance? clojure.lang.Seqable x))
>
> > Could something like seqable? be added to core? Am I mistaken in the
> > need for standardizing this function?
>
> > Sean
>
> > PS - Sorry if this isn't the right avenue for feature requests.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
