Max Penet <[email protected]> writes: > user> ((every-pred (fn [_]))) > true > user> ((some-fn (fn [_]))) > nil > > Shouldn't the first example return false? since the first function > always returns nil?
No. ((every-pred a b c) o1 o2 ...) returns true if all predicates a, b, and c return true for all given args o1, o2, and so one. You don't pass any args, so this is basically (and), which also returns true. `and` is true if all arguments are logically true, which is trivially given when none are provided. > I was also wondering if it would make sense to add a 0 argument > version of these, it would make their usage with apply more > convenient, and comp which has a smiliar signature behaves like that: > > user> ((comp) true) > true > > user> ((some-fn) true) > ; Evaluation aborted. > > user> ((every-pred) true) > ; Evaluation aborted. (comp) is `identity` which makes sense. What would the semantics be for every-pred and some-fn? IMO, it should be user> ((some-fn) <no-matter-what>) false user> ((every-pred) <no-matter-what>) true e.g. (some-cn) was equivalent to (constantly false) and (every-pred) was equivalent to (constantly true). Bye, Tassilo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
