On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Andy Fingerhut <andy.finger...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Why not ({:x {:y 1}} {:x {}} nil) ?
>
Hi Andy,
Great point! Both solutions convey accurately the same meaning? I have a
subjective preference to nil as the absence of things in b that are not in
a. Conversely {:x {}} implies that :x is replaced by an empty map, which is
indeed equivalent, but to my mind the map was always there. It does call
out the fact that the collection is now empty, which might be useful if one
was interested in identifying that condition.
Do you have any thoughts on why {:x {}} might be better?
Regards,
Timothy
--
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/d/optout.
