On Jan 13, 6:45 pm, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > sure . . . I'm just impressed with how many things "just work", and this > could be one more. Not enough args, but you know what I wanted it to mean. > There's no ambiguity.
This is a bad idea. It just adds confusion with no real benefit. Reading the code would be harder, and you'd wind up with all sorts of odd behavior if (nil) evaluated to nil. Or to put it another way, imagine if you allowed this behavior in Python: if foo(): bar() Are foo and bar functions, or lists? - James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
