I would like to second this :) it just looks good!
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:49 PM, mifrai wrote:
>
> Thanks Rich!
>
> Do you think it's worthwhile to add `not-empty?' in the core?
>
> It just feels more natural to go:
> (when (not-empty? (filter even? [1 2]))
>...)
> over
> (when (seq (fil
Thanks Rich!
Do you think it's worthwhile to add `not-empty?' in the core?
It just feels more natural to go:
(when (not-empty? (filter even? [1 2]))
...)
over
(when (seq (filter ..)) ..)
What do you think?
- Mike
On Feb 17, 11:43 am, Rich Hickey wrote:
> I've merged the lazy branch into
At this point test-clojure doesn't generate any new failures or errors
(except the old 'mod' function failures). Coverage is still relatively
small, but (cycle []) bug and case of (reverse []) were caught with
its help when rewriting tests :-)
Thanks for all the fixes!
Frantisek
On Feb 18, 8:0
On Feb 18, 2:09 pm, Stefan Rusek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, Frantisek Sodomka wrote:
> >> How should I say it... It just didn't look "symmetrical" to me.
>
> >> So, basically, there is a difference between functions returning
> >> s
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, Frantisek Sodomka wrote:
>> How should I say it... It just didn't look "symmetrical" to me.
>>
>> So, basically, there is a difference between functions returning
>> sequences - depending on if they are lazy or eage
On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, Frantisek Sodomka wrote:
> How should I say it... It just didn't look "symmetrical" to me.
>
> So, basically, there is a difference between functions returning
> sequences - depending on if they are lazy or eager. Hmm...
>
> user=> (reverse [])
> nil
> user=> (if (reverse [
How should I say it... It just didn't look "symmetrical" to me.
So, basically, there is a difference between functions returning
sequences - depending on if they are lazy or eager. Hmm...
user=> (reverse [])
nil
user=> (if (reverse []) true false)
false
user=> (if (seq (reverse [])) true false)
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Frantisek Sodomka wrote:
>
> What about 'conj'? Documentation says:
> (conj nil item) returns (item).
>
> Currently:
> user=> (conj nil 1)
> (1)
> user=> (conj () 1)
> (1)
Is there something wrong with that? It looks right and like it
matches the docs to me.
>
Or maybe more general question: Is there any function in Clojure which
when returning empty sequence, returns nil instead of () ???
user=> (butlast [1 2 3])
(1 2)
user=> (butlast [1])
nil
user=> (butlast [])
nil
Thanks, Frantisek
On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, Frantisek Sodomka wrote:
> What about 'con
What about 'conj'? Documentation says:
(conj nil item) returns (item).
Currently:
user=> (conj nil 1)
(1)
user=> (conj () 1)
(1)
Idiom "conj nil" is used in 'reverse': (reduce conj nil coll)
Currently:
user=> (reverse [1 2])
(2 1)
user=> (reverse [1])
(1)
user=> (reverse [])
nil
It looks that n
On Feb 18, 5:22 am, Frantisek Sodomka wrote:
> There is something that confuses me:
> user=> (cycle [])
> ()
>
> user=> (= (cycle []) ())
> true
> user=> (= (cycle []) nil)
> true
> user=> (= () nil)
> false
>
Fixed in svn 1292 - thanks for the report.
Rich
--~--~-~--~~---
I believe it's already done.
Frantisek
On Feb 18, 12:39 pm, Mark Volkmann wrote:
> Now that next is recommended over rest, should nthrest be renamed to nthnext?
>
> --
> R. Mark Volkmann
> Object Computing, Inc.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message bec
Now that next is recommended over rest, should nthrest be renamed to nthnext?
--
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send
There is something that confuses me:
user=> (cycle [])
()
user=> (= (cycle []) ())
true
user=> (= (cycle []) nil)
true
user=> (= () nil)
false
Thanks for answering, Frantisek
On Feb 18, 3:54 am, Rich Hickey wrote:
> On Feb 17, 4:16 pm, Frantisek Sodomka wrote:
>
> > That was fast! ;-)
>
> >
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Chouser wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>>
>> Please do not rush to this version unless you are a library/tool
>> developer. Let them do their ports and chime in on their progress.
>> Move only when the libs/tools you depend upon have
On Feb 17, 4:16 pm, Frantisek Sodomka wrote:
> That was fast! ;-)
>
> Rich, I am porting test_clojure and old 'cycle' worked as:
> (cycle []) => nil
>
> Currently:
> (cycle []) => java.lang.StackOverflowError
>
Fixed in svn 1290 - thanks for the report.
Rich
--~--~-~--~~-
That was fast! ;-)
Rich, I am porting test_clojure and old 'cycle' worked as:
(cycle []) => nil
Currently:
(cycle []) => java.lang.StackOverflowError
Frantisek
On Feb 17, 8:43 pm, Rich Hickey wrote:
> I've merged the lazy branch into trunk, SVN rev 1287
>
> Please do not rush to this version
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>
> I've merged the lazy branch into trunk, SVN rev 1287
>
> Please do not rush to this version unless you are a library/tool
> developer. Let them do their ports and chime in on their progress.
> Move only when the libs/tools you depend upon ha
I've merged the lazy branch into trunk, SVN rev 1287
Please do not rush to this version unless you are a library/tool
developer. Let them do their ports and chime in on their progress.
Move only when the libs/tools you depend upon have been ported.
Thanks to all for your feedback and input!
Ric
19 matches
Mail list logo
