On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Mark Volkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There aren't as many cases of this as I had thought. > Here are the cases I found. > > cons takes an argument named "seq". > do-seq and for take an argument named "seq-exprs". > into-array takes an argument named "aseq". > long-array takes an argument whose name ends with "seq". > select-keys takes an argument named "keyseq". > > Are you saying it would be more accurate to change "seq" to "coll" in > each of these cases?
Most of these don't actually shadow the any builtin function, so my main argument doesn't apply. In the case of 'cons', I would argue that it's arg should indeed be named 'coll' instead of 'seq'. In fact, the Java function it delegates to (RT/seq) uses the name 'coll'. For the others, they do all appear to call 'seq' on the arg you name, so any collection could be passed in. Whether it makes sense to highlight this fact by renaming the arg to something-coll or not probably depends on the specific function or macro and how its expected to be used -- not a very high-priority item, in any case. --Chouser --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
