If "contains?" is a sensible name for that function, then surely "seq-contains?" cannot be a sensible name for a function which checks a totally different sort of "containment"?
Also, if it is possible to view "seq-contains?" as a sensible enough name for a core library function with sequential semantics, then surely "contains?" cannot be intrinsically evocative of a different notion of "containment", even if it is possible to get used to this word being attached to such a notion. Incidentally, I have personally got used to the Clojure meaning of "contains?" without great difficulty, so I was initially a bit surprised by this thread exploding to such length... But then "contains?" is a very desirable name and in hindsight, a controversy over which op it should be attached to was to be expected. Not just because it's cool to have such a good name at one's disposal, but because any other notion of "containment" is bound to get a substandard name (if indeed it slips into the core lib at all), because every other "good" name will be totally confused with contains? by everyone and is therefore out of the game (cf. includes?). Using a few variant names (like the proposed ones based on "contains?", but with disambiguating affixes attached) could be a reasonable compromise. (Although I'd be a little bit sad that the "perfect" name is gone, its sacrifice would mean two "reasonable" names become available.) If that is unacceptable, then perhaps "seq-contains?" could at least get a name *not* including the "contains?" part, so that it becomes natural not to assume that it does roughly the same thing as "contains?". (There's precedent for prefixes meaning "do mostly the same thing, but in a different context" in Clojure, e.g. "enumeration-seq", "iterator-seq".) To end on a punnish note, I'd sort of expect the predicate counterpart of "get" to be called "got?"... Oh well. At the end of the day, I'm confident that the overall greatly considered design of Clojure (including naming conventions) is internally consistent enough that it can be conveyed to a newcomer with a reasonable amount of good technical writing. Apparently most people think the same and are therefore quite prepared to move on. :-) All the best, Michał -- 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
