The final proposition in the other thread to rename contains? into contains-key? and seq-contains? into contains-val? seems good, no ? Don't you think they are better names ? (contains-key? indicates more clearly that the coll is viewed as an associative thing ; contains-val? implies it will work with the value of associative things and with raw containers)
2010/4/29 Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com>: > Agreed: Rich's explanation is the more important bit. > > My point is that we may be wasting time arguing about something that nobody > actually does. If idiomatic usage changes as the community grows, we *could* > add a collection-generic contains. > >> While I have no position on seq-contains?, I question this methodology, >> which I've seen a few times now. It's early days for Clojure, you're >> sampling a very small codebase, and there may be as yet unforseen idiomatic >> uses (such as you point out for testing) which invalidates this argument. In >> addition I think you may be begging the question somewhat. Rich's >> explanation is more sound than this argument. >> >> On 29/04/2010, at 9:40 PM, Stuart Halloway wrote: >> >>> "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In >>> practice, there is." -Yogi Berra (maybe). >>> >>> The recent thread on the new seq functions spun off into a theoretical >>> discussion about whether about the merits of having contains? and >>> seq-contains? as separate functions. I would like to ground that discussion >>> with some observations from real-world use: >>> >>> Doing an O(n) search of a seq (via includes? or, under its new name, >>> seq-contains?) occurs the following number of times in various libraries: >>> >>> Clojure: 0. >>> Contrib: 0. >>> Compojure: 1. (and it's wrong--should be a set test) >>> Incanter: 0. >>> >>> (There are a few calls to seq-contains? in the test suite for contrib, >>> and I wrote all of them. If you write lots of unit tests you already know >>> why such calls make sense there.) >>> >>> Also, AFAICT, there are *no* examples of using instance checks to select >>> the right containment function. So the theoretical concerns about this >>> issue have basically no exemplars in practice. >>> >>> "In theory, you may be right about 'contains?.' In practice, Rich Hickey >>> is right." - Stu Halloway. :-) >> >> Antony Blakey >> -------------------------- >> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd >> Ph: 0438 840 787 >> >> Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails >> of the last priest. >> -- Denis Diderot >> >> -- >> 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 >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> 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 > > -- > 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 > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > 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 -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
