Since transients are no longer marked as alpha, I want to take this (last?) chance to raise an interface question concerning them:
Right now, we cannot distinguish whether a transient contains a key with a nik value or if it doesn't contain the key, because contains? doesn't work on transients. Is it supposed to stay that way? There is a long standing ticket for that, which seems to have been overlooked when promoting transients out of alpha: http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-700 2014-02-17 3:54 GMT+01:00 Mars0i <marsh...@logical.net>: > 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. > -- 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.
