Inspired by "seq"/"empty?" docstrings.
not-any?
Returns false if (pred x) is logical true for any x in coll,
else true - same as (not (some pred coll)).
some
Returns the first logical true value of (pred x) for any x in coll,
else nil. One common idiom is to use a set as pred, for example
this will return :fred if :fred is in the sequence, otherwise nil:
(some #{:fred} coll)
Please use the idiom (not-any? pred coll) rather than (not (some pred coll))
Thoughts?
Ambrose
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Kevin Baribeau <kevin.barib...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I actually had the same thought as the OP when reading through docs not too
> long ago.
>
> +1 for adding a pointer to "some" in the docstring of "not-any?"
>
> -kb
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant <
> abonnaireserge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> any? would be redundant and less general than some, if I am not mistaken.
>> Compare the docstrings for the hypothetical "any?".
>>
>> (some p coll)
>> Returns the *first logical true value* of (pred x) for any x in coll,
>> else *nil*.
>>
>> (any? p coll)
>> Returns *true* if (pred x) is logical true for any x in coll,
>> else *false*.
>>
>>
>> Since *nil* and *false* are both falsy, "some" can be used as a predicate
>> that is truthy
>> when it finds truthy result, otherwise falsy. This is exactly the behavior
>> expected from
>> an any? function.
>>
>> "some" is a poster boy for Clojure's well thought out truthyness system,
>> this is a great example
>> of the types of general functions it allows.
>>
>> Perhaps a pointer to "some" should be added in the docstring of
>> "not-any?". Although
>> a quick look at the source makes it crystal clear. I wasn't aware of
>> "not-any?"s existence,
>> maybe noting it in "some"s docstring could be beneficial also.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ambrose
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:08 PM, de1976 <davidescobar1...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone. In looking through the API documentation, I've noticed
>>> that there is a "not-any?" function available, but there is no
>>> corresponding inverse "any?" function that I can find. There are,
>>> however, "every?" and "not-every?" functions available. The closest I
>>> could find was "some", but wouldn't it make sense to have an "any?"
>>> function for more obvious consistency? Thanks.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
--
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
