Why use def? You could just place re? after the definition of defn,
and write it:
(defn re?
"Return true if x is a regular expression"
{:added "1.3"}
[x]
(instance? java.util.regex.Pattern x))
- James
On 23 August 2010 16:17, Jeff Rose <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks like regular expressions are the only type with built-in
> syntax that don't have a predicate function. How about:
>
> (def
> ^{:arglists '([x])
> :doc "Return true if x is a regular expression
> (java.util.regex.Pattern)"
> :added "1.3"}
> re? (fn re? [x] (instance? java.util.regex.Pattern x)))
>
> Or maybe call it "regexp?" if "re?" isn't clear enough...
>
> -Jeff
>
> --
> 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
--
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
