On 2010 Apr 29, at 8:27 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
did you also check some? I would use (some #{item} coll)
or (some #(= % item) coll) from core instead of sucking in
3.5Mb contrib for includes?.
Odd, isn't it, that there is a special function zero? when everyone
could just use #(= 0 %)
Maybe we should remove zero? (it'd have to be deprecated first) and
punt on seq-contains? or contains-val?
Isn't your real beef/bug-report here that you won't use a meaning/
intention conveying function here because it is in a library you won't
load as the overhead of getting one function from a large library is
too high? If that were in a smaller library would it make any
difference?
-Doug
--
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
