On Feb 15, 6:34 pm, "James G. Sack (jim)" <jgs...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> Rich Hickey wrote:
> >..
> > The second option is to choose the best possible names, and deal with
> > some short term pain in porting and confusion. I think the best names
> > are:
>
> > ;item
> > (first x)
>
> > ;collection of remaining items, possibly empty
> > (rest x)
>
> > ;seq on next item, or nil if none
> > (next x)
>
> (I would say "seq-on-remainder-of-collection")
>
> I really like the first/rest decomposition concept. first (if exists) is
> an item, and rest is the remainder-of-whatever following the first.
>
> To me next connotes another item like the first, and that may be
> misleading. So I do not think that next is a good name.
>
> Please allow me as an inexpert, relatively uninvolved reader to raise an
> emperor's new clothes type question: why is there a need for next
> anyway. Are there that many idioms or code internals that justify a
> shortcut for (seq rest)?
>
next exists right now - it's called rest, and there are plenty of
calls to it.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
