On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Alex Baranosky < alexander.barano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of the code I see and write at work at Runa uses (not (empty? foo)). > I'll continue to defend the position that it is more obvious code, and > therefore better (imo :) ) > > Alex > Completely agree. (seq foo) says "nothing", but (empty? foo) says exactly what's going on. Jonathan -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
