There is never a reason to write (apply conj ...). Instead, use `into`, which does the same thing but faster and with fewer characters.
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:27:24 PM UTC-7, CGAT wrote: > > It would be nice if clojure.core/conj had a unary implementation > > ([coll] coll) > > The motivating use case is when one is conjoining sequences of > items to a collection all at once: > > (apply conj coll seqable) > > such as (apply conj #{1 2 3} [2 4 6 8 10]). > Currently (1.4.0), this will raise an arity exception > if the seqable object is empty: > > (apply conj #{1 2 3} []) > > necessitating an awkward empty? check when, > for instance, the sequence is computed or passed in. > > It seems to me that making unary conj the identity is both > a natural interpretation and essentially cost free, while > making this use case much more convenient. > Moreover, it is consistent with clojure.core/disj for sets > which does act like this > > (apply disj #{1 2 3} []) -> #{1 2 3} > > and has an identity unary implementation. > > Comments? > > > -- 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