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
In the definition of dorun:
(defn dorun
"When lazy sequences are produced via functions that have side
effects, any effects other than those needed to produce the first
element in the seq do not occur until the seq is consumed. dorun can
be used to force any effects. Walks through the succ
Rich says "Git is not going to happen any time soon, great as it may
be, given the current lack of infrastructure (google code) and tools
support."
I'm curious as to why github isn't a viable alternative to google
code? Now that it has issue tracking, I don't see the advantages of
choosing goog
Hi,
I was wondering why there was no "update" to "update-in"? But there is
an "assoc" to "assoc-in" and a "get" to a "get-in".
- Mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this
rom experience there tends be really good reasons behind
these kinds of decisions and I'm just curious.
On Apr 29, 4:05 pm, David Nolen wrote:
> Because update-in can use any function to do the update.
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, mifrai wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> >
This is probably a dumb question answered somewhere else, but I
couldn't find it :(
I noticed that there's a send-off in the dosync clause of ants.clj
Does send-off hold off enqueue'ing the action when a dosync fails/
repeats or do the actions keep getting added?
If it doesn't - well, ant's beh
Great! Thanks for your reply, it turned out I had a bug somewhere in
my code and I was bleeding send-offs.
On Jun 5, 12:06 am, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> mifrai writes:
>
> Hi!
>
> > I noticed that there's a send-off in the dosync clause of ants.clj
>
> > Does s
Is there a preferred way to do the following with the ns macro:
(in-ns 'myns)
(refer 'clojure :exclude '(map))
or is that the only way?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to th
I know it's minor and nit-picky but so long as we're rolling out so
many breaking changes is it possible to reclaim scan and touch instead
of leaving dead functions that need an :exclude?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to
