Same argument applies (er...) to the zero element case.
Phil
Ashton Kemerling writes:
> I wouldn't be surprised if the 1 arg form is to help people who use > along
> with apply, just in case the list is only 1 element long.
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Phillip Lord
> wrote:
>
>> Herwi
On 17/09/2014 15:28, Ashton Kemerling wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the 1 arg form is to help people who use >
along with apply, just in case the list is only 1 element long.
That is precisely why it should do the same thing with zero arguments,
which is what happens when you use apply with
I wouldn't be surprised if the 1 arg form is to help people who use > along
with apply, just in case the list is only 1 element long.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Phillip Lord
wrote:
> Herwig Hochleitner writes:
>> 2014-09-17 11:51 GMT+02:00 Phillip Lord :
>>
>>>
>>> So, why not special ca
Herwig Hochleitner writes:
> 2014-09-17 11:51 GMT+02:00 Phillip Lord :
>
>>
>> So, why not special case 1 arg as well, and have that except? It's a
>> reasonable question. I would submit a bug report and see if anyone else
>> agrees. Something is wrong for sure. Either (> x) should throw arity, o
2014-09-17 11:51 GMT+02:00 Phillip Lord :
>
> So, why not special case 1 arg as well, and have that except? It's a
> reasonable question. I would submit a bug report and see if anyone else
> agrees. Something is wrong for sure. Either (> x) should throw arity, or
> (>) should return true, or the d
Robert Tweed writes:
> In writing this, I thought I'd better also test what (>) and (<) evaluate to,
> because by the above definition, those should also evaluate to true.
> Unfortunately, at least in v1.6, they throw an arity error. IMO, by the same
> logic that says a single argument is valid,
On 15/09/2014 13:34, Phillip Lord wrote:
Jeremy Vuillermet writes:
Could it return a (partial > 2) ?
Because > works with n args and not just two.
The question was /why/ and yours is the best attempt to answer that, but
I think, slightly off the mark.
Firstly, the fact that > is variadic d
No marco is returned.
=> (type (> 2))
java.lang.Boolean
And from here
https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/028af0e0b271aa558ea44780e5d951f4932c7842/src/clj/clojure/core.clj#L1029
you can see, that with one parameter, there is always returned true.
noniwoo
2014-09-15 9:46 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Vu
Jeremy Vuillermet writes:
> Thanks, that' clearer.
> Also I didn't take time to read the docstring
> "Returns non-nil if nums are in monotonically decreasing order,
> otherwise false."
>
> so I guess [2] is monotonically decreasing and increasing at the same
> time.
Yeah, so the same list
Thanks, that' clearer.
Also I didn't take time to read the docstring
"Returns non-nil if nums are in monotonically decreasing order,
otherwise false."
so I guess [2] is monotonically decreasing and increasing at the same time.
Maybe I just read too much about transducers and now I try -1 ari
On 15 September 2014 13:44, Kalina Todorova wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Phillip Lord
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeremy Vuillermet writes:
>>
>> > Could it return a (partial > 2) ?
>>
>>
>> Because > works with n args and not just two.
>>
>> (> 2) => (partial > 2)
>>
>> then why not
>>
>
I didn't actually think that they have actually hard-coded it to true.
It makes sense from logical stand point to return true but hard-coding it I
am not sure that is the best approach here.
Best regards | Med venlig hilsen,
KALINA TODOROVA
T: 0045 52 64 93 73
E: ad...@ki6i.com
Frederikssunds
Jeremy Vuillermet writes:
> Could it return a (partial > 2) ?
Because > works with n args and not just two.
(> 2) => (partial > 2)
then why not
(> 2 3) =? (partial > 2 3)
when is the sensible place to stop?
Now, if > took at most two args, this would be a sensible thing.
As far as I ca
On 15 September 2014 08:46, Jeremy Vuillermet
wrote:
> Could it return a (partial > 2) ?
http://clojuredocs.org/clojure_core/clojure.core/%3E
If you look at the source code near the bottom of the page, you will
find that it specifies that when you give > a single argument it
always returns true.
Could it return a (partial > 2) ?
--
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 fr
15 matches
Mail list logo
