In clojure we are used to shortcuts involving not: (when-not x ...) => (when (not x) ...) (if-not x ...) => (if (not x) ...) (not-every? pred coll) => (not (every? pred coll)) (not-any? pred coll) => (not (some pred coll))
However, the new function clojure.core/any? breaks this semantic pattern: > (doc clojure.core/any?) ------------------------- clojure.core/any? ([x]) Returns true given any argument. > (doc clojure.core/not-any?) ------------------------- clojure.core/not-any? ([pred coll]) Returns false if (pred x) is logical true for any x in coll, else true. These two functions are not only unrelated to each other, but they don't even accept the same number or type of arguments. Moreover, there is an even more surprising property: > (clojure.core/any? nil) true I would have bet money that, at least for nil, the result would not have been true. Given the significant prior conventions in Clojure for functions like some, every?, *-not, not-*, and also the general handling of nil, it seems that the new any? function is bound to cause much confusion & consternation, especially among people learning Clojure. Given the degenerate definition: > (source clojure.core/any?) (defn any? [x] true) would it not be simpler and more instinctive to rename the function clojure.core/true: (defn clojure.core/true [x] true) We could then have code with the obvious result: (true 1) => true (true "hi") => true (true []) => true (true nil) => true I believe that such a change would help to keep Clojure in line with users instincts and assumptions, as well as past Clojure practices. I have often felt that one of the most important principles in any sort of software development is adherence to the Principle of Least Astonishment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment>. Alan On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Alex Miller <a...@puredanger.com> wrote: > > 1.9.0-alpha10 includes the following changes since 1.9.0-alpha9: > > - NEW clojure.core/any? - a predicate that matches anything. any? has > built-in gen support. The :clojure.spec/any spec has been removed. > Additionally, gen support has been added for some?. > > > > -- 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.
