On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Dan Larkin <d...@danlarkin.org> wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
>>
>> If in? was to be added how would it behave when given a map as the
>> first argument? I would rather have "contains?" do the right thing
>> for list/vectors/sets and keep its current behavior for maps. If we
>> do actually need a function like contains that ONLY accepts a map as
>> the first argument I think a name like has-key? is the most intuitive.
>
> I think "in?" would behave like "contains?" when given a map:
>
> (in? {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3} :a) => true
> (in? {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3} :d) => falseI thought we had beaten this one entirely to death: http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/ff224d2b88b671e7/575cefc2c03ce154 And yet it lives! What is the drawback of the (some #{:y} [:x :y :z]) idiom? Is it too verbose? Too slow? Too flexible? Too good a re-use of existing functionality? Too helpful in opening ones eyes to the possibilities of sets and higher order functions? And if you really don't want to use it (why again?) there is clojure.contrib.seq-utils/includes?, so why not use that? --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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
