On Dec 5, 10:28 am, "Arie van Wingerden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> right. But still I think Meikel has got a valid point that a function would
> need to be defined for that.
>
> I also wondered whether a kind of type? function would be appropriate.
> So (type? 3) would return in
On Dec 5, 9:07 am, Meikel Brandmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5 Dez., 15:03, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That's true. However, with Clojure now having a specific meaning for
> > "atom" that's different from that of the larger Lisp world, I'm
> > wondering
Hi Rich,
right. But still I think Meikel has got a valid point that a function would
need to be defined for that.
I also wondered whether a kind of type? function would be appropriate.
So (type? 3) would return integer etc.
Arie
2008/12/5 Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> On Dec 5, 9:03
Hi Mark,
didn't know about that. But I'm glad it appears to be okay then.
Arie
2008/12/5 Mark McGranaghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This is indeed the definition used in the clojure.contrib.pred library:
>
> http://github.com/kevinoneill/clojure-contrib/tree/master/src/clojure/contrib/pred.clj#L4
On Dec 5, 9:03 am, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Mark McGranaghan wrote:
>
> > This is indeed the definition used in the clojure.contrib.pred
> > library:
> >http://github.com/kevinoneill/clojure-contrib/tree/master/src/clojure...
>
> That's true.
Hi,
On 5 Dez., 15:03, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's true. However, with Clojure now having a specific meaning for
> "atom" that's different from that of the larger Lisp world, I'm
> wondering if it would be a good idea to remove atom? from pred.clj.
>
> Feedback wel
On Dec 5, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Mark McGranaghan wrote:
> This is indeed the definition used in the clojure.contrib.pred
> library:
> http://github.com/kevinoneill/clojure-contrib/tree/master/src/clojure/contrib/pred.clj#L45
That's true. However, with Clojure now having a specific meaning for
"
This is indeed the definition used in the clojure.contrib.pred library:
http://github.com/kevinoneill/clojure-contrib/tree/master/src/clojure/contrib/pred.clj#L45
- Mark M.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Arie van Wingerden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am learning Clojure by working th
Hi,
I am learning Clojure by working thru Kent Dybvigs book in Scheme and
Clojure at the same time. A nice way to discover the differences ;-)
I wonder if the next definition is appropriate to test if something ia an
atom (as Scheme sees it):
(defn atom? [x]
(not (coll? x)))
Thx,
Arie
