Unless you want to argue that core is magical, I don't see how you could possibly maintain that claim of consistency.
It is perfectly understandable that the documentation in this and other areas may sometimes be lacking and lagging with Rich's focus on forging ahead. Keeping that in mind, it is very strange to me that you would suggest treating it as authoritative for the sake of writing code. A more realistic answer would be that much about Clojure is still in flux and that you shouldn't count too strongly on things staying the same, even if it's in the documentation. -Per On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Apr 1, 10:42 am, Per Vognsen <per.vogn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Are you serious? It is neither complete nor consistent. How can it be >> authoritative? > > The list is by definition complete and consistent. Use characters not > in the list and your programs might suddenly break. Exceptions in core > (<, =, /, ...) might be disputable but do not change things for user > programs. > > Sincerely > Meikel > > -- > 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 > > To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject. > -- 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
