Well, excepts that it is not correct. It will return false when really there was a faulty collection handed to it. I'd rather catch an error like that than to pretend it didn't happen and give a result that isn't correct while also being hard to detect. If you can guarantee it won't get a bad collection then the test and exception aren't needed. Its an interesting problem - especially when you are writing "mission critical" code.
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 9:55:38 AM UTC-5, Jim foo.bar wrote: > > On 22/05/13 15:54, Peter Mancini wrote: > > The nil behavior of the 'or' version breaks what I wanted, but I may > > create functions that return just true or false though the odd edge > > case where "and" will return a value will mean I'll have to handle that. > > wrap that call in a 'boolean' call (e.g. (boolean (or ...))) and you got > your true/false result :) > > Jim > > -- -- 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.
