On Dec 8, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Surgo wrote:
> That's a fair criticism. I suppose that I'm not necessarily looking
> for specifically String manipulation abstractions (I can just do a
> (.substr "abc" 1) to get "bc" as a String after all), but rather
> looking for an abstraction that takes something that's addressable as
> a sequence and returns it in the same format or type instead of a seq.
So something like an inverse to (seq)? You could write such a thing, though it
would have to know about each type (seq) knows about. More importantly, it
would have to somehow know what type the thing originally was, since there's no
difference between e.g. (seq "abc") and (seq [\a \b \c]). You'd either have to
store the type when calling (seq) and manually pass it when calling the inverse
function, or else I suppose you could write a wrapper for (seq) that adds
metadata about what type the thing originally was.
Incidentally, while testing this last idea, I was surprised to find that :type
metadata is treated specially:
=> (with-meta '() {:type (type [])})
[]
I assume this means :type is used internally by Clojure somehow. I notice
clojure.org says that metadata "is used to convey information to the compiler
about types", but ought there be a list of "reserved" metadata?
--
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
