I like Alex's suggestions. Another option is "something" rather than
"some" or "exists". "Something" has the disadvantage that it's long, so
when you combine it with addition strings, you get something even longer.
On the other hand, for me both "some" and "exists" sound like existential
quantifiers in logic, as in "Some x is F", "There exists an x such that
Fx". The clojure function *every?* plays the role of the universal
quantifier (All x are F), and the *some* function plays the role of the
existential quantifier, although it does more.
However, a function named "something?" doesn't really sound like an
existential quantifier (despite the fact that in English "something" can be
used to express the existential quantifier ("something is F"). Rather,
"something?" suggests that there's something, rather than nothing, i.e.
rather than nil.
(something? false) => false
is still a little bit confusing, but if you think of it as saying that
falsehood is not nothing, then maybe it makes sense.
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 11:29:38 AM UTC-6, Alex Walker wrote:
>
> Part of Rich's objection to not-nil? variants could be that they are a
> double negative, "not-(no value)?", which can decrease clarity and require
> more coffee.
>
>
>> - nil Means 'nothing/no-value'- represents Java null and tests
>> logical false [clojure.org/reader]
>>
>>
> To compete with some? variants, I'd suggest a positive that I found
> strangely available:
>
> exists?
> if-exists[?]
> when-exists[?]
>
> Or, more proper, though potentially more overloaded: value?, if-value[?],
> when-value[?].
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:54:12 AM UTC-6, Эльдар Габдуллин wrote:
>>
>> Like this, just
>>
>> not-nil?
>> if-not-nil
>> when-not-nil
>>
>> is much better for me.
>>
>>
>>
>> суббота, 15 февраля 2014 г., 7:12:21 UTC+4 пользователь Joel Holdbrooks
>> написал:
>>>
>>> As an addendum to my last comment, *not-nil?* would also be a good
>>> candidate. That really doesn't leave room for doubt.
>>>
>>> This:
>>>
>>> (some? false) ;; => true
>>>
>>> Would confuse me. On the other hand this:
>>>
>>> (not-nil? false) ;; => true
>>>
>>> Would not.
>>>
>>> There's really no need to complicate the naming story here. It's also
>>> easy to remember!
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2014 3:25:36 PM UTC-8, Alex Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, February 14, 2014 2:27:49 PM UTC-6, DomKM wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Great changes! I have a question about #5.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 5) New "some" operations
>>>>>> Many conditional functions rely on logical truth (where "falsey"
>>>>>> values are nil or false). Sometimes it is useful to have functions
>>>>>> that rely on "not nilness" instead. These functions have been added to
>>>>>> support these cases [CLJ-1343]:
>>>>>> * some? - same as (not (nil? x))
>>>>>> * if-some - like if-let, but checks (not (nil? test)) instead of test
>>>>>> * when-some - like when-let, but checks (not (nil? test)) instead of
>>>>>> test
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems inconsistent to have "some" mean two very different things
>>>>> within the same namespace, especially since the prior uses of "some"
>>>>> (`some`, `some-fn`, etc.) are more in keeping with its primary definition
>>>>> of having to do with amount (and operate on seqs or variadic arguments)
>>>>> while the new functions have to do with existence (and operate on any
>>>>> single value). Why not call these new functions `not-nil?`, `if-not-nil`,
>>>>> and `when-not-nil`? Or, if "not-nil" is too unwieldy then what about
>>>>> "exists" (`exists?`, `if-exists`, `when-exists`)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are these names up for discussion?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Dom et al,
>>>>
>>>> The names of these functions were chosen by Rich. There was already
>>>> some name overloading of "some" even before these new functions with some
>>>> (truthy) and some->/some->> (not nil). The new functions keep with the
>>>> latter meaning. Many other names were considered, including everything
>>>> I've
>>>> seen someone mention (-not-nil, exists, nnil, etc). As far as I know these
>>>> names are final, however, I will relay all of the feedback I've seen here,
>>>> on #clojure, and on Twitter to Rich for consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
--
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.
