On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:42:13 PM UTC, Nils Bertschinger wrote:
> It solves a > common problem, namely to drop the last element of a sequence and > reads better in this case than the equivalent idiom using drop-last. > I don't quite get it. How does (butlast x) read better than (drop-last x)? (Granted, these two calls have slightly different semantics, the difference being laziness. However, the non-lazy version should not normally be required, or else we should have non-lazy versions of map, filter etc.) -- 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
