More options: I was browsing through the docs and I couldn't find a function that is the "opposite" of filter, which would allow something like:
(remove nil? coll) Or alternatively if we had not-nil? (filter not-nil? coll) Are either of those more palatable? In regards to compact removing false, I would be against that, since Clojure makes a distinction between false and nil. You could, for example, want to have a collection of boolean values, but want to remove the nils (perhaps they're a sentinel for some other meaning). user> (compact [true false nil true true]) (true false true true) I think it makes sense to have the number functions like max and min throw a NPE, and since false and nil are distinct, I think it makes sense to have a compact that removes nil, but leaves false. Paul On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Stuart Halloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Just to add to the confusion: I want compact to remove nil and > false. :-) > > > Perhaps another nudge for compact is that it's not as simple as > > (filter identity coll), to wit: > > > > user> (filter identity [1 2 nil false 4]) > > (1 2 4) > > > > user> (filter #(not (nil? %)) [1 2 nil false 4]) > > (1 2 false 4) > > > > So unless you want to catch false in your net you really need to be > > doing the latter, which again is not unreasonable, but just a little > > messy to be using frequently. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
