> > I recommend people avoid these predicates as much as possible. But > what they do is clearly defined. I don't intend to add seqable?, and > sequence?, at least as we've discussed here. > > This sounds right to me, too, but I wonder if my reasons are the same. This isn't Eiffel. There's no section for defining a precondition. So I think it's not a matter of having to catch exceptions (I don't even know if you can do that in Clojure) since the predicates don't exist. The caller just shouldn't send in non-sequables to things that take sequables. It's not the callee's job to be paranoid and check input. Ok, to make this work, though, the caller either needs access to the implementation or they need a well documented API . . . . or they need a good variable name to help the callee out. If there is exception handling, the caller can chose whether or not to use it.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
