On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Warren Lynn <wrn.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right now
>
> (last []) => nil
> (last [nil]) => nil
>
> So there is no way to differentiate these two (except with some
> emptiness checking). In my opinion (last []) should throw an
> exception, because that's when last does not apply.
That would be horribly inconsistent with the rest of Clojure, IMO:
user> (first [])
nil
user> (first [nil])
nil
user> (second [])
nil
user> (second [nil])
nil
user> (second [nil nil])
nil
user> (next [])
nil
user> ({:a 1 :b 2} :c)
nil
user> (map inc nil)
()
user> (map inc [])
nil
user> (seq nil)
nil
user> (seq [])
nil
;; etc etc etc
Warren, this and some of your other issues with how Clojure works
makes me curious about your language background. May I ask what
languages you're most used to? That may help us frame future
discussions about differences in opinion about features in Clojure.
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/
"Perfection is the enemy of the good."
-- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)
--
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
