Or even define `if-not-empty` or `when-not-empty` without the double `not`.
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:04:43 AM UTC+8, Jean Niklas L'orange wrote: > > 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.
