I disagree, the new implementation is a subset of the code I presented. Here is the docstring from 1.9.0-alpha14
(doc any?) ------------------------- clojure.core/any? ([x]) Returns true given any argument. There isn't a predicate function argument as in (not-any?): (doc not-any?) ------------------------- clojure.core/not-any? ([pred coll]) Returns false if (pred x) is logical true for any x in coll, else true. A semantically consistent implementation of (any?), given the current implementation of (not-any?) would provide a similar function prototype where an arbitrary predicate function would evaluate against a collection. On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 5:05:45 PM UTC-8, James Reeves wrote: > > On 6 November 2016 at 23:31, waffletower <christoph...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I find the semantic of the new (any?) function to be in conflict with >> (not-any?) and a strange addition, at least with the chosen name. This >> concern has come up on the "clojure dev" group as well. I have found a >> different implementation of (any?) useful in my own projects: >> >> (defn any? >> [pred coll] >> (not (not-any? pred coll))) >> >> I found it odd that (not-any? pred coll) existed without (any? pred coll). >> > > The clojure.core/some function does effectively the same thing as your > any? function. > > - James > -- 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.
