On 04.02.2009, at 15:03, MikeM wrote:
> This seems less burdensome - fewer cases where I'd need to do this vs > (if (seq s) ... A slightly off-topic comment: I wonder why the (if (seq s)...) idiom is so important. It is completely unintellegible to a reader who is not aware of the idiomatic use of seq. The first time I saw it, I looked up the documentation for seq and was still wondering what the code was doing. There is the nice convention of having test predicates end in ?, so I'd expect to see something like (if (non- empty? s) ...) Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
