Am Freitag, 16. September 2011 schrieb David Nolen : > > I will note: > > It will probably not become an error because of the reasons I mentioned > above and there is no reason to single out transients over all the other > types that also return false. >
Thanks, I just was about to start a thread on dev about contains? and get being to loosely typed. Your response arrived JIT to make me reread your comment about heterogenous collections. The reason to single out transients is that returning false/nil from contains?/get, is a particularly bad interaction after having read http://clojure.org/Transients where it says: "Transients support the read-only interface of the source, i.e. you can call *nth*, *get*, *count* and fn-call a transient vector, just like a persistent vector." Since contains? and get on a transient return faulty values anyway, contrary to the doc, why not make it a NotImplementedError for 1.3.0? > There are already patches that "fix" issue and they haven't been applied. > True. But Rich didn't seem averse to the idea of making it defined behavior, either. -- 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
