On 7 November 2016 at 02:47, waffletower <christopherpenr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree, the new implementation is a subset of the code I presented. > Here is the docstring from 1.9.0-alpha14 > Disagree with what? I don't understand your answer. A semantically consistent implementation of (any?), given the current > implementation of (not-any?) would provide a similar function prototype > where an arbitrary predicate function would evaluate against a collection. > Your "semantically consistent implementation of (any?)" already exists in the language. It's called "some". Personally I think "any?" and "some?" are aptly named, and that it's the older "not-any?" and "some" functions that mess things up. Maybe if Clojure were being designed from scratch again, we'd have something like "has" and "not-has?", but it's too late to change common function names now. - James -- 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.
