Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

Clojure isn't for the most part a community effort therefore decisions about the language and it's core library are seldom made in the collaboration with the community. In my opinion, if you want your language change proposal to be considered, you have to justify and back it up by a strong

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

With respect, I have searched prior conversations and have not found a justification for why any? is in clojure.core rather than clojure.spec. All the problems people have raised with any? are due to it be a predicate with a very specific use-case (defining specs) but placed in a namespace

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

Thank you, Alex. I'll check them out. ~Timothy Dean On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Alex Miller wrote: > We had this discussion at length in several places (clojure mailing list, > clojure-dev mailing list, reddit probably) over a year ago when any? was > added in

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

We had this discussion at length in several places (clojure mailing list, clojure-dev mailing list, reddit probably) over a year ago when any? was added in 1.9.0-alpha10. Search the archives for the prior discussions, I don't have time right now to re-summarize it all. On Sunday, October 8,

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

If the ship has sailed, why, then, the ship has sailed. I only send this now because I'd already written it before I saw your reply, Alex. I do not think `any?` is a "gigantic" mistake, though I do think it is confusing. I expect to see a few some?/any? bugs from beginners. `some?` and `any?

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

This ship has sailed. > On Oct 6, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Alan Thompson wrote: > > Before 1.9.0 is officially released, I would like to propose a revisit to the > semantic mismatch introduced by the clojure.core/any? function. > > Many, many people are dissatisfied by the choice

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

Before 1.9.0 is officially released, I would like to propose a revisit to the semantic mismatch introduced by the *clojure.core/any? *function. Many, many people are dissatisfied by the choice of *clojure.core/any?* to be defined as *(constantly true)*, which is completely in conflict with

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

Is there a Tricky Names for Nubies page? We might save some stack-overflow searches. In the spirit of Honest Trailers: if we named functions for what they do: or-> first-truthy some -> first-satisfying some? -> not-nil? any? -> return-true Are there others? -- You received this message

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

Not to try to force the last word, but I have already created the symmetry that I desire locally: (defn not-not-any? [pred coll] (not (not-any? pred coll))) On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 8:27:09 AM UTC-8, Colin Yates wrote: > > > Back at ya. I respect your opinion - I just see things

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

> Back at ya. I respect your opinion - I just see things differently. I think that is the perfect way to end this conversation :-). On 8 November 2016 at 16:17, Alex Miller wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 9:34:53 AM UTC-6, Colin Yates wrote: >> >> you mean Java

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 9:34:53 AM UTC-6, Colin Yates wrote: > > you mean Java with the 'billion dollar mistake' known as null? Yep, that one, which millions of programmers use every day. > The Java which has just completed changed its Date and Time API _for the > better_? They

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

you mean Java with the 'billion dollar mistake' known as null? The Java which has just completed changed its Date and Time API _for the better_? Or maybe you are referring to JavaScript with its insane scoping rules? Maybe Ruby with its ridiculously wide scoping rules? And I am pretty sure Java

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 1:23:29 AM UTC-6, Devin Walters (devn) wrote: > > Perhaps there'll be some liberties taken in 2.0? > Highly unlikely. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

The ship has indeed sailed. However, it is exactly these moments when software starts to degrade - there are many examples of crufty software crippled by legacy decisions. I would much rather have ruthless application of 'good' engineering, deprecating where necessary than continue to pay the

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

The more I've thought about it, the more I've resigned myself to the fact that any? is the only rational choice. We have `some?`, `some`, `not-any?`, and `any?`. There's no resolving the asymmetry without breaking code, and it's undeniably true that `any?` reads nicely in the context of specs.

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

> Personally I think "any?" and "some?" are aptly named, and that it's the > older "not-any?" and "some" functions that mess things up. > I can understand the intuition that "not-any?" and "some" are the oddballs, but "Are there any Xs?" and "Are there some Xs?" are true in exactly the same

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

On 7 November 2016 at 02:47, waffletower wrote: > I disagree, the new implementation is a subset of the code I presented. > Here is the docstring from 1.9.0-alpha14 > Disagree with what? I don't understand your answer. A semantically consistent implementation of

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

[Inconsequential email] On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Mars0i wrote: > "any?" wasn't the only option. I would have gone with something obvious > like "always-true", or "yes", or even something possibly too-clever like > "arg-or-not-arg?" or "or-not-this?" These last

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

That discussion has left quite a sour taste in my mouth. Naming is so important and to be blunt, this name is awful: - breaks the ubiquitous language of English which already has a very well defined definition of 'any' and those semantics aren't it - breaks the ubiquitous language of Clojure

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 12:16:28 AM UTC-6, Mars0i wrote: > > "any?" wasn't the only option. I would have gone with something obvious > like "always-true", or "yes", or even something possibly too-clever like > "arg-or-not-arg?" or "or-not-this?" > Or maybe: "argument?" "value?"

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 9:54:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Thompson wrote: > > There was quite a discussion of this topic back in July if you'd like to > review it: https://goo.gl/Azy8Nf > > The semantic mismatch is unfortunate. > Alan > It's not just a mismatch with not-any?, though. "any?"

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

There was quite a discussion of this topic back in July if you'd like to review it: https://goo.gl/Azy8Nf The semantic mismatch is unfortunate. Alan On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:47 PM, waffletower wrote: > I disagree, the new implementation is a subset of the code I

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

I disagree, the new implementation is a subset of the code I presented. Here is the docstring from 1.9.0-alpha14 (doc any?) - clojure.core/any? ([x]) Returns true given any argument. There isn't a predicate function argument as in (not-any?): (doc not-any?)

Re: any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

On 6 November 2016 at 23:31, waffletower wrote: > I find the semantic of the new (any?) function to be in conflict with > (not-any?) and a strange addition, at least with the chosen name. This > concern has come up on the "clojure dev" group as well. I have found

any? in clojure 1.9.0 alpha

I find the semantic of the new (any?) function to be in conflict with (not-any?) and a strange addition, at least with the chosen name. This concern has come up on the "clojure dev" group as well. I have found a different implementation of (any?) useful in my own projects: (defn any?