I'd say the simplest answer is just that functions *are* values, they are
never logical-false, and (not) is based on logical falseness. Giving (not)
a special case for functions would make it less composable by trying to
make it do more.
-James
On Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:55:53 UTC-5, Char
I understand that, hence the example being to check if the value was a
function, since returning false from not'ing a function didn't make sense
to me. The change I was inquiring about applied to your example would be;
(filter (fnot even?) [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]) => (1 3 5 7)
(filter fnot [true false t
The difference between not and complement is that not takes a *value* and
produces a new *value* which is true if the original was false (and vice
versa) while complement takes a *function* and produces a new *function *which
returns true in the cases where the original function would return fal
Hi All,
I quite like Clojure but have been confused from time to time on particular
design choices. I find understanding the root cause of these decisions
helps to understand the language better. As example, the fact that
complement and not are separate functions has been puzzling me for a bit
