On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 03:14, Alex Baranosky <alexander.barano...@gmail.com> wrote: > What a coincidence. My instinct would be to make (interleave) return an > empty seq, instead of nil. I wonder the trade-offs between the two?
There is no such thing as an empty seq. Or put another way, the empty seq *is* nil. You're probably thinking of an empty list. ;the empty list user> (list) () ;the empty seq user> (seq (list)) nil Returning nil has the advantage that nil is false in a boolean context. (when-let [s (apply interleave ...)] ... ) // ben -- 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
