Like this, just not-nil? if-not-nil when-not-nil
is much better for me. суббота, 15 февраля 2014 г., 7:12:21 UTC+4 пользователь Joel Holdbrooks написал: > > 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.
