Part of Rich's objection to not-nil? variants could be that they are a double negative, "not-(no value)?", which can decrease clarity and require more coffee.
> - nil Means 'nothing/no-value'- represents Java null and tests logical > false [clojure.org/reader] > > To compete with some? variants, I'd suggest a positive that I found strangely available: exists? if-exists[?] when-exists[?] Or, more proper, though potentially more overloaded: value?, if-value[?], when-value[?]. On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:54:12 AM UTC-6, Эльдар Габдуллин wrote: > > 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.
