Hi,

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Chris Maier <christopher.ma...@gmail.com>wrote:

> That makes sense... thanks, Meikel.
>
> Maybe my example of + wasn't the best, given its mathematical nature.
>
> Here's my situation: I'm writing some software to analyze some protein
> datasets, part of which entails generating a Venn diagram of their
> intersections.  Each dataset has a unique name, and my function looks
> up the data by this name in a database.  Right now the function takes
> a single "&" parameter of "datasets"; you give it as many dataset
> names as you want, and it gives you the intersection breakdown.
> Internally, this function just treats "datasets" like the sequence it
> is.
>
> So I guess a better way to state my question would be this: if you
> only have a function that operates on a sequence of items, and it
> could be written either as
>
> (def foo [& stuff] ... )
>
> or
>
> (def foo [stuff] ... ) ;; where 'stuff' is a sequence
>
> are there any concerns besides (for lack of a better term) the
> "ergonomics" of calling such functions that should influence which
> signature to use?
>

If you really want to treat your sequence lazily pass it explicitely and not
as varargs.

You can also provide both: clojure.core has #'conj and #'into for example.

hth,

  Christophe

-- 
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

Reply via email to