Probably so the list can be compared to anything and thus o may not
implement Seqable, like:
user=> (.equals '() nil)
false
On Sep 1, 4:14 pm, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While examining the Clojure source I came across this line in the
> EmptyList class:
>
> public boolean equals(Object o) {
> return (o instanceof Sequential || o instanceof List) &&
> RT.seq(o) == null;
> }
>
> What's up with the RT.seq(o) == null? Why don't we do this instead:
>
> public boolean equals(Object o) {
> return (o instanceof Sequential || o instanceof List) && o
> instanceof Seqable && ((Seqable)o).seq(o) == null;
> }
>
> I've seen RT used in other places as well, I guess I don't understand
> why it's used here, or what it is at all....
>
> Timothy
>
> --
> “One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was
> that–lacking zero–they had no way to indicate successful termination
> of their C programs.”
> (Robert Firth)
--
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
