I like this, and I am OK with seq (function) being the oddball that returns a seq or nil.
Rich, this is what Beta 8 of the book currently says -- ok with you? Stuart > I believe that one of Rich's stated purposes with the latest revision > of the laziness branch was to get rid of some of the subtle > differences between these terms after all the discussions about this. > I think that with the new changes the intent is: > seq (noun) = sequence = ISeq, i.e., anything you might get back from > rest. > > This is a bit counterintuitive, however, because you might expect that > the noun seq should mean anything you can get back from the seq > function (i.e., a nonempty ISeq or nil). However, the behavior of the > seq? predicate implies that the noun seq is intended to be a synonym > for ISeq. > > I tend to use the term seq-able to mean anything you can pass to the > seq function without error. > > Anyway, that's my impression... > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
