On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:21 AM, ataggart wrote: > I know it won't matter, but for posterity if nothing else... > > Functions named contains-key? and contains-val? would make a lot more > sense to me than the current contains? and new seq-contains?. Anyone > looking at contains-val? should expect it to be O(n). The only > effective difference would be that the test value for contains-val? is > consistently a single value rather than a [key value] tuple for maps.
+1. I can't imagine any use case for looking up a whole [key, value] pair in a hash-map. -- 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
