> > There is no one who understands `(if (seq thing)` who wouldn't understand > `(if (not (empty? thing))` or, better, `(if (not-empty? thing)`. The > converse is not true. That suggests that the latter should be the idiom
No, it doesn't. That simply illustrates that idioms must be learned, as in any kind of language. > But, for the rest of us, > I don't believe you speak for the rest of us. Not for me, anyway. -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
