Doesn't anyone use "not-empty"? http://clojuredocs.org/clojure_core/clojure.core/not-empty
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:36:57 AM UTC-7, Nico Balestra wrote: > > I'm not sure this question has been asked already, but I really want to > know the "principle" behind (not (empty? coll)) not being idiomatic. > > I find it much more readable than (seq coll) and I don't understand why > (empty?) exists if it's not idiomatic. But my real doubt is: > > What's the "idiom" in (seq coll)? > > Thanks and sorry if the question sounds a bit pedantic :) > > Nico > > *"It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than > to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures" - A.J. Perlis* > -- -- 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.
