On May 27, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Armando Blancas <abm221...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's fun to make use of esoterica like `seq`'s behavior with an empty list. >> Back in the early days, it was necessary. [2 examples] >> >> But, for the rest of us, the necessity has drained out of that kind of >> esoterica. > > I don't believe you speak for the rest of us. Not for me, anyway. So, for you, it is *necessary* that you use `seq` instead of `not-empty`. That is, there is some way in which your applications, or your life, would be worse if you used the latter - a way that is different than just "it's the way my gang does it". I'd be happy to convinced there's a difference, as I'd learn something new. What is that difference? -------- Latest book: /Functional Programming for the Object-Oriented Programmer/ https://leanpub.com/fp-oo -- -- 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.
