On Aug 29, 2012, at 2:08 PM, dmirylenka wrote:
> I would say, they treat nil as an empty sequence, which makes nil,
> effectively, a unit:
>
> (assoc nil :a :b) ; => {:a :b}
> (merge nil {:a :b}) ; => {:a :b}
It's not a unit if you're using `if-let` and expect nil to represent failure
and {} to represent a success that establishes no bindings.
-----
Brian Marick, Artisanal Labrador
Contract programming in Ruby and Clojure
Occasional consulting on Agile
--
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
