Hi, On Feb 2, 1:48 pm, Timothy Pratley <timothyprat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you view 'get-in' as an unwrapping operation, unwrapping by zero steps > > should return the existing collection, no? > > Thanks for that description I completely agree. Hmm.. I thought of get-in as a recursive application of get. get-in now diverges from get. Maybe this version should be called "unwrap" instead? Sincerely Meikel -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
