Re: Small bug in clojure.core/bases?
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 10. August 2011 22:15:48 UTC+2 schrieb Alf: When calling bases on an inteface it returns an array. Should this not be a seq? Would that make a difference? You can pass an array where you'd expect a sequence. Sincerely Meikel -- 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
Re: Small bug in clojure.core/bases?
I think a function should generally return the same types for different input. A seq and a Java array are two very different things even though Clojure often lets us pass both to the same functions. It seemed like a small fix, but I guess not everyone agrees. Like a wrote, I think this is small bug. I was just playing around with the function at the repl, and the behavior surprised me, so I thought I would mention it on the mailing list. user= (bases java.util.List) #Class[] [Ljava.lang.Class;@315b0333 user= (bases java.util.ArrayList) (java.util.AbstractList java.util.List java.util.RandomAccess java.lang.Cloneable java.io.Serializable) Cheers, Alf On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 08:03, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) m...@kotka.de wrote: Hi, Am Mittwoch, 10. August 2011 22:15:48 UTC+2 schrieb Alf: When calling bases on an inteface it returns an array. Should this not be a seq? Would that make a difference? You can pass an array where you'd expect a sequence. Sincerely Meikel -- 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 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
Re: Small bug in clojure.core/bases?
Hi, Am Montag, 15. August 2011 11:25:33 UTC+2 schrieb Alf: I think a function should generally return the same types for different input. A seq and a Java array are two very different things even though Clojure often lets us pass both to the same functions. It seemed like a small fix, but I guess not everyone agrees. No issue. Just thought you might have a specific use case where this is an issue. Sincerely Meikel -- 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
Re: Small bug in clojure.core/bases?
On Aug 10, 2011 1:16 PM, Alf Kristian Støyle alf.krist...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think I found a small bug in clojure.core/bases. Extending the
existing unit test reveals it:
(deftest test-bases
(are [x y] (= x y)
(bases java.lang.Math)
(list java.lang.Object)
(bases java.lang.Integer)
(list java.lang.Number java.lang.Comparable) )
(is (seq? (bases java.util.List
Test output is:
FAIL in (test-bases) (java_interop.clj:143)
expected: (seq? (bases java.util.List))
actual: (not (seq? #Class[] [Ljava.lang.Class;@363256a5))
When calling bases on an inteface it returns an array. Should this not
be a seq?
An easy fix though, 'seq' the else part:
(defn bases
Returns the immediate superclass and direct interfaces of c, if any
{:added 1.0
:static true}
[^Class c]
(when c
(let [i (.getInterfaces c)
s (.getSuperclass c)]
(not-empty
(if s (cons s i) (seq i))
Should I file a bug, submit a pull request, or is the behavior intended?
Cheers,
Alf
--
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 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
Re: Small bug in clojure.core/bases?
I think a function should generally return the same types for different input. A seq and a Java array are two very different things even though Clojure often lets us pass both to the same functions. It seemed like a small fix, but I guess not everyone agrees. That's clearly a bug; they forgot to seq one of the two possible return values. File a bug and add a patch. -- 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
Re: Small bug in clojure.core/bases?
Thanks. Submitted an issue to Jira, and I guess I will just see how it goes. http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-828 Cheers Alf On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 16:26, Armando Blancas armando_blan...@yahoo.com wrote: I think a function should generally return the same types for different input. A seq and a Java array are two very different things even though Clojure often lets us pass both to the same functions. It seemed like a small fix, but I guess not everyone agrees. That's clearly a bug; they forgot to seq one of the two possible return values. File a bug and add a patch. -- 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 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
Re: Small bug in clojure.core/bases?
On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 4:15:48 PM UTC-4, Alf wrote: Should this not be a seq? That depends on how you interpret the plural (immediate superclass and direct interfaces) in its docstring. user (clojure-version) 1.2.1 user (use 'clojure.contrib.core 'clojure.pprint) nil user (pprint (map (fn [p?] (cons (:name (meta p?)) (map (juxt identity p?) [[1] (map identity [1]) (bases java.util.List)]))) [#'seq? #'sequential? #'seqable?])) ((seq? [[1] false] [(1) true] [[java.util.Collection] false]) (sequential? [[1] true] [(1) true] [[java.util.Collection] false]) (seqable? [[1] true] [(1) true] [[java.util.Collection] true])) I personally favor seqable? as the test for plural return values. sequential? almost qualifies, but excludes sets. seq? fails on account of rejecting even vectors, but you may feel differently. -- 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
Re: Small bug in clojure.core/bases?
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Stephen Compall stephen.comp...@gmail.com wrote: I personally favor seqable? as the test for plural return values. sequential? almost qualifies, but excludes sets. seq? fails on account of rejecting even vectors, but you may feel differently. And just to do my usual pitch for the new contrib libraries so folks can get used to them and start switching from old monolithic contrib to the new modular contribs... seqable? now lives in [org.clojure/core.incubator 0.1.0] -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.getrailo.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
Small bug in clojure.core/bases?
I think I found a small bug in clojure.core/bases. Extending the
existing unit test reveals it:
(deftest test-bases
(are [x y] (= x y)
(bases java.lang.Math)
(list java.lang.Object)
(bases java.lang.Integer)
(list java.lang.Number java.lang.Comparable) )
(is (seq? (bases java.util.List
Test output is:
FAIL in (test-bases) (java_interop.clj:143)
expected: (seq? (bases java.util.List))
actual: (not (seq? #Class[] [Ljava.lang.Class;@363256a5))
When calling bases on an inteface it returns an array. Should this not
be a seq?
An easy fix though, 'seq' the else part:
(defn bases
Returns the immediate superclass and direct interfaces of c, if any
{:added 1.0
:static true}
[^Class c]
(when c
(let [i (.getInterfaces c)
s (.getSuperclass c)]
(not-empty
(if s (cons s i) (seq i))
Should I file a bug, submit a pull request, or is the behavior intended?
Cheers,
Alf
--
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
