That's a fair point, but do you always know that what you've gotten back is a sequence or a data structure, if you aren't looking directly at the code that you're calling?
On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:08:00 AM UTC-4, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) wrote: > > Hi, > > Am Montag, 13. Mai 2013 13:57:57 UTC+2 schrieb Herwig Hochleitner: >> >> 2013/5/13 Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) <m...@kotka.de> >> >>> seq belongs to seq-land. empty? belongs to data structure land. It >>> should actually be implemented as #(zero? (count %)). But unfortunately it >>> is not. >>> >> >> I'd argue it shouldn't >> >> (empty? (cycle [1 2 3])) => false >> (zero? (count (cycle [1 2 3]))) ... infinite loop >> > > You misunderstood my argument. cycle returns a sequence => use seq. count > is the wrong thing to call here. And calling seq without using its return > value (with a name) is a smell. count should not be called in sequences. > (In fact I believe that count should be O(1).) > > (Shameless plug in case it clarifies what I mean: > http://kotka.de/blog/2010/11/Beware_the_unnamed_seq.html ) > > Meikel > > -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
