Thanks for all the answers. Agreed that sequences are a great abstraction (100 functions in 1 data structure instead of 10 to 10) and, as David said, there's value in having the return type to be predictable. I think a 'generics collection functions' library would be nice for those edge cases you want those functions to be generic.
I guess the philosophical reason is that 'concrete types don't > really matter'... Well, maybe most of the time, but there's cases where the concrete type semantics matters a lot, specially with sets but sometimes with vectors too, right now i'm using into or just calling vec|set or reducers library but maybe I'll try to implement this generics library I just talk about as it's really easy to do that in clojure =) Islon -- -- 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.
