CLJ-700 is a bug, regardless of whether it is marked as alpha or not. This ticket has a strange history of approval statuses (pre-dating my involvement with jira) that caused it not to be included in 1.6 earlier. Unfortunately, I think it is too big a change to consider at this point in 1.6 (due to refactoring of key interfaces, etc). I would expect it to be looked at for the next release.
Alex On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:54:36 AM UTC-6, Herwig Hochleitner wrote: > > Since transients are no longer marked as alpha, I want to take this > (last?) chance to raise an interface question concerning them: > > Right now, we cannot distinguish whether a transient contains a key with a > nik value or if it doesn't contain the key, because contains? doesn't work > on transients. > Is it supposed to stay that way? > > There is a long standing ticket for that, which seems to have been > overlooked when promoting transients out of alpha: > http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-700 > > > 2014-02-17 3:54 GMT+01:00 Mars0i <mars...@logical.net <javascript:>>: > >> I like Alex's suggestions. Another option is "something" rather than >> "some" or "exists". "Something" has the disadvantage that it's long, so >> when you combine it with addition strings, you get something even longer. >> >> On the other hand, for me both "some" and "exists" sound like existential >> quantifiers in logic, as in "Some x is F", "There exists an x such that >> Fx". The clojure function *every?* plays the role of the universal >> quantifier (All x are F), and the *some* function plays the role of the >> existential quantifier, although it does more. >> >> However, a function named "something?" doesn't really sound like an >> existential quantifier (despite the fact that in English "something" can be >> used to express the existential quantifier ("something is F"). Rather, >> "something?" suggests that there's something, rather than nothing, i.e. >> rather than nil. >> >> (something? false) => false >> is still a little bit confusing, but if you think of it as saying that >> falsehood is not nothing, then maybe it makes sense. >> >> >> >> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 11:29:38 AM UTC-6, Alex Walker wrote: >>> >>> 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 clo...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> 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+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- 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.
