Fair enough. Clearly list* isn't intended to do what you want. I'd suggest using (into '() ...).
On Jan 23, 8:38 am, samppi <rbysam...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Clojure parser I'm writing needs to differentiate between nil and > the empty list. It should parse "[1 2 3]" and read that as [1 2 3], > and the same for lists, maps, and sets. If it parses "()" and reads > that nil, then it's not working correctly. > > In addition, code in some other libraries I'm writing depends on the > vector? and list? functions. (list? (list* coll)) is (confusingly) > always false unless coll is a list to begin with. That explains > another bug that I was encountering earlier... > > What I don't get is the terminology and the doc of list*. list* > definitely does not return lists; it returns sequences, a superset of > the list. This does affect any code that depends on collection types > (e.g. list?). > > On Jan 23, 1:02 am, ataggart <alex.tagg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm still confused by why you'd need a list version of vec. Just > > return the sequence. Whatever would consume the list should > > equivalently consume the seq. -- 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
