Re: OK idea to replace conj and cons with "prepend" and "append" macros that have consistent behavior and return same types as args?

> > And it’s worth noting that Rich has said nth is “somewhat of a mistake”: > https://gist.github.com/reborg/dc8b0c96c397a56668905e2767fd697f#why-cannot-last-be-fast-on-vector > >

clojure test has 10 failures

Could you explain more about your environment and how you ran the tests? -- 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 w

clojure test has 10 failures

[java] Ran 635 tests containing 17442 assertions. [java] 10 failures, 0 errors. [java] Testing clojure.test-clojure.printer [java] [java] FAIL in (print-throwable) (printer.clj:124) [java] expected: (= (-> (Exception. "heyo") Throwable->map) (-> (Exception. "heyo") pr-

RE: OK idea to replace conj and cons with "prepend" and "append" macros that have consistent behavior and return same types as args?

But Clojure is geared more towards professional programmers who understand that different data structures have different strengths and weaknesses, and who prefer to use an API that makes those strengths and weaknesses explicit, rather than fooling you into doing something inefficient. (nth bein

Re: OK idea to replace conj and cons with "prepend" and "append" macros that have consistent behavior and return same types as args?

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Christian Seberino wrote: > This might surprise some but I actually think some things are more > elegant in Clojure than Scheme! > Expect these revelations to continue. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" grou