> > http://clojuredocs.org/clojure_core/clojure.core/if
It's great, Andy, thank you! I haven't even thought about clojuredocs at all. Since it still doesn't eliminates the problem completely, I believe many clojure newcomers will find it incredibly useful. Stefan Kamphausen <ska2...@googlemail.com> writes: > According to e.g. > http://nathanmarz.com/blog/fun-with-equality-in-clojure.html > it's a speed trade-off. Yes, but adding a couple of words to the ='s docstring (and possibly printing a warning) as I suggested earlier doesn't have any trade-offs, right? It's actually a trivial fix that would save a lot of time and OMGWTFs for the new clojure users. Just like Boolean's javadoc puts a strong emphasis on the fact that public *Boolean*(boolean value) constructor usually shouldn't be used, clojure's docstring should say that (= x false) may give you a result which will confuse you, so you'd better use 'false?' instead. Note: I'm writing all this not because I like to argue, but because I want to make sure that the community has came to a consensus on this issue before opening a ticket. -- 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
