On Jan 13, 5:57 pm, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Instead of that being an error, why not overload the vector function so that
> no args calls the version that returns the list. That seems like a good
> idea! I wonder if people will object.
Actually in your case that would not work, because l2 can also be nil.
(nil) is a function call to nil, and you can't call nil either.
Ok so if nil were to implement a function that returned nil you would
be home free...
But really, isn't that just more confusing than the problem you are
trying to solve?
what's so bad about writing l2 instead of (l2)?
Anything in parenthesis is a function call.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
