Sure, I was just copying the style of the existing predicate functions
in core.clj to keep it consistent.
-Jeff
On Aug 23, 5:25 pm, James Reeves <jree...@weavejester.com> wrote:
> 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
