seq is not seq? On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Brian Hurt <bhur...@gmail.com> wrote: > So the doc comment on empty? reads, in part: > >> Please use the idiom (seq x) rather than (not (empty? x)) > > A heads up to people: these two code sequences are *not* identical in > behavior: > > user=> (seq? '()) > true > user=> (not (empty? '())) > false > user=> > > Brian > > -- > 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
-- And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good— Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? -- 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
