Hi,
this will be simplified tremenduously when there is a Seqable protocol. Then
satisfies? will do the job.
I'm still thinking when I ever needed seqable?, though.
Kind regards
Meikel
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant <abonnaireserge...@gmail.com>
An: clojure@googlegroups.com
Gesendet: Fr, 08 Jun 2012, 08:58:51 MESZ
Betreff: Re: why String is not a collection (of Character)
Hi Andy,
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Andy L <andy.coolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 09:22 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant wrote:
>
>> Every Seqable is not Sequential.
>>
>> (sequential? {:a 1}) => false
>>
>
> Is there a simple test for sequable?
No. I assume you mean seqable.
If it did exist, it would look something like:
(defn seqable?
"True if (seq a) does not throw an exception"
[a]
(or (instance? Seqable a)
(instance? String a)
(instance? java.util.Map a)
(.isArray (class a)) ;pseudocode
(instance? Iterable a)
...))
Thanks,
Ambrose
--
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
