On May 16, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Mars0i <marsh...@logical.net> wrote: > I think I'd use "kws" or "keywords" in that case. I'd expect a seq of > keywords. > > I don't think keyw-seq is too narrow though. The items in a seq on a map are > "map entries" or more generically "pairs", not "keywords". > > OK, but "seq" implies that sets aren't appropriate, but as long as I don't > care about order, they may be perfectly fine.
Good point. Technically kw-seq is too narrow because you probably have no need to restrict your argument to seqs. The distinction is often blurred because many Clojure functions that operate on seqs also directly or indirectly call "seq" on their argument. Any coll that's "seqable" will also work. I think looking at the word kew-seq as an argument name, I would expect to be able to pass in colls that are not seqs but are seqable including vector and set. Revising my earlier thought: I think I'd use "kws" or "keywords" in that case. I'd expect a seq or seqable coll whose items are keywords. --Steve -- 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/d/optout.
