On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Dan Larkin <d...@danlarkin.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
>>>
>>> If in? was to be added how would it behave when given a map as the
>>> first argument? I would rather have "contains?" do the right thing
>>> for list/vectors/sets and keep its current behavior for maps. If we
>>> do actually need a function like contains that ONLY accepts a map as
>>> the first argument I think a name like has-key? is the most intuitive.
>>
>> I think "in?" would behave like "contains?" when given a map:
>>
>> (in? {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3} :a) => true
>> (in? {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3} :d) => false
>
> I thought we had beaten this one entirely to death:
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/ff224d2b88b671e7/575cefc2c03ce154
>
> And yet it lives!
>
> What is the drawback of the (some #{:y} [:x :y :z]) idiom? Is it too
> verbose? Too slow? Too flexible? Too good a re-use of existing
> functionality? Too helpful in opening ones eyes to the possibilities
> of sets and higher order functions?
I vote for too verbose. ;-)
> And if you really don't want to use it (why again?) there is
> clojure.contrib.seq-utils/includes?, so why not use that?
I'd like for that to be moved to core so I don't have to load it ...
which is also verbose for something that is commonly needed.
--
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
