So I was thinking of: user=> (def any? (comp boolean some)) #'user/any? user=> (any? true? [false true false]) true user=> (any? even? [1 2 3]) true ; touch "3" user=> (any? #(.exists %) [(file "1") (file "2") (file "3")]) true
Some motivations - my main one is Java interop where use of non booleans would be weird - similarly it is nicer for APIs to return booleans than a value that is kinda arbitrary and potentially non deterministic. I might recall Rich saying something like that..? - the symmetry of `any` joining `not-any`, `every` and `not-every`. On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 2:21:26 PM UTC+12, Alex Miller wrote: > > I think 'some' fills this role. Given truthy values, why do you need to > use boolean with it? > > On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 8:32:09 PM UTC-5, Colin Taylor wrote: >> >> Any reason why we don't have `any?`. Googled without much luck. >> Trivially done as `comp boolean some` not doubt, but I know I use it more >> than not-any at least. >> It's particularly useful as a composable `or`. >> >> >> -- 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.
