On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:19 PM, MarkSwanson wrote: > On Apr 29, 4:21 am, ataggart <alex.tagg...@gmail.com> 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. This is super clear. I find nothing existing or proposed comes > close to this level of clarity.
inc. those are great names. --Steve -- 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
