Hi,
On 29 Apr., 15:34, Douglas Philips <d...@mac.com> 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?.
>
> 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?
No. Because some carries enough meaning for me. Is "some" element of
the "coll"ection equal ("=") to the "item" I have? As was said
elsewhere
this is an established (idiomatic) way to test that. (And it is
sufficiently ugly to carry the performance implications)
However, a lot of people coming from other languages expected a
dedicated
functions for this ("some" is more general) and deemed contains? to be
that function (although the docstring clearly states otherwise).
So for me, seq-contains?/contains-val? is just a different phrasing
for
the above. I understand that it is easier for newbies to discover this
functionality and hence it is a reasonable thing to support that in
order to enhance the approachability of the language.
But I will not include a library for just that single function. I
actually
included already libraries for a single function, read Moustache. But
that really provides added value, not just a different name.
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
