On Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:28:34 PM UTC+2, Sean Corfield wrote: > you could just write [...] >
In some cases, this is even more readable: (if-not (empty? foo) (do-something-to foo) base-expr) which has the same effect, but in some cases, having (do-something-to foo) first may be more readable than having base-expr first. I'd generally write code as evident as possible. (if-not (empty? x) is a recurring pattern as I feel it conveys its purpose better than (if (seq x), but I suppose that's preference. -- JN -- -- 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.
