As an addendum to my last comment, *not-nil?* would also be a good candidate. That really doesn't leave room for doubt.
This: (some? false) ;; => true Would confuse me. On the other hand this: (not-nil? false) ;; => true Would not. There's really no need to complicate the naming story here. It's also easy to remember! On Friday, February 14, 2014 3:25:36 PM UTC-8, Alex Miller wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 14, 2014 2:27:49 PM UTC-6, DomKM wrote: >> >> Great changes! I have a question about #5. >> >> >>> 5) New "some" operations >>> Many conditional functions rely on logical truth (where "falsey" >>> values are nil or false). Sometimes it is useful to have functions >>> that rely on "not nilness" instead. These functions have been added to >>> support these cases [CLJ-1343]: >>> * some? - same as (not (nil? x)) >>> * if-some - like if-let, but checks (not (nil? test)) instead of test >>> * when-some - like when-let, but checks (not (nil? test)) instead of test >> >> >> It seems inconsistent to have "some" mean two very different things >> within the same namespace, especially since the prior uses of "some" >> (`some`, `some-fn`, etc.) are more in keeping with its primary definition >> of having to do with amount (and operate on seqs or variadic arguments) >> while the new functions have to do with existence (and operate on any >> single value). Why not call these new functions `not-nil?`, `if-not-nil`, >> and `when-not-nil`? Or, if "not-nil" is too unwieldy then what about >> "exists" (`exists?`, `if-exists`, `when-exists`)? >> >> Are these names up for discussion? >> > > Hey Dom et al, > > The names of these functions were chosen by Rich. There was already some > name overloading of "some" even before these new functions with some > (truthy) and some->/some->> (not nil). The new functions keep with the > latter meaning. Many other names were considered, including everything I've > seen someone mention (-not-nil, exists, nnil, etc). As far as I know these > names are final, however, I will relay all of the feedback I've seen here, > on #clojure, and on Twitter to Rich for consideration. > > Alex > > -- 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.
