As background re the collection model: http://insideclojure.org/2016/03/16/collections/
Keys and vals are both defined as functions that take a seqable of map entries. Given that definition, it is not easily possible to widen it to also take a collection with the associative trait, because a collection like vector will not produce a seq of entries, but rather a seq of vector values. The ability to seq to map entries is something only provided by maps. Yes, it would be possible to make a function that worked on either, but I think doing so would break the existing contract of these functions, not extend it. To the design question of whether it should have been done this way or not in the first place, that's harder for me to say. On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:50:22 PM UTC-5, Michael Gardner wrote: > > I've looked around, but couldn't find any discussion on the topic. Is it > purely an implementation thing, or a design choice? > > (Yes, I realize you can just do (range (count v)).) -- 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.
