For "rest" arguments, as in (defn foo [x & r] r), when the remaining arguments are rolled up into a sequence, you will get nil instead of an empty sequence.
Is it fair to say that the "rest" nomenclature came about back at the beginning of Clojure, when rest really did return nil, prior to the introduction of next and lazy sequences? In other words would it be fair to, given today's behavior, characterize them as really being "next" arguments, but with a historical name? -- 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.
