Re the discussion around some?/if-some/when-some...
Summarizing feedback here:
1) some? has a confusion with some (but some congruence with some-,
some-)
2) other names might be better (not-nil?, nnil?, exists?, value?)
3) if-some and when-some lack the word let to clue you into their binding
Since transients are no longer marked as alpha, I want to take this (last?)
chance to raise an interface question concerning them:
Right now, we cannot distinguish whether a transient contains a key with a
nik value or if it doesn't contain the key, because contains? doesn't work
on transients.
CLJ-700 is a bug, regardless of whether it is marked as alpha or not.
This ticket has a strange history of approval statuses (pre-dating my
involvement with jira) that caused it not to be included in 1.6 earlier.
Unfortunately, I think it is too big a change to consider at this point in
1.6
Part of Rich's objection to not-nil? variants could be that they are a
double negative, not-(no value)?, which can decrease clarity and require
more coffee.
- nil Means 'nothing/no-value'- represents Java null and tests logical
false [clojure.org/reader]
To compete with some?
I like Alex's suggestions. Another option is something rather than
some or exists. Something has the disadvantage that it's long, so
when you combine it with addition strings, you get something even longer.
On the other hand, for me both some and exists sound like existential
quantifiers
Thanks! Great to hear positive benchmark results. I'd guess that if you did
(count (distinct (map hash your-set))) you'd see that was a lot smaller than
(count your-set) in 1.5.1 indicating hash collisions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure
I'd agree with all that. One place we've seen nil but not false become more
prevalent lately is in core.async. Channels reserve special meaning for nil
(closed) but false is a valid channel value. So if-some and when-some are
particularly useful in go loops that take from a channel. There are a
inline
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:41:52 AM UTC-5, Mars0i wrote:
Could someone clarify for me why some? as a name for not nil makes sense
at all in the first place? Not criticizing. I just don't understand what
existence or there being some of something has to do with nil.
Maybe
Thanks for all of the very helpful answers about nil and some. I
understand now. I'll add my voice to those who are bothered by the two
distinct uses of some (some, some-fn vs some-, some-, some?) bother
me.
I celebrate the semi-arbitrary quirkiness of function names in Common Lisp,
but
Thank you for all of the very helpful answers about nil and some. I
understand now.
I am *very* grateful to Rich Hickey and all of the other dedicated Clojure
developers. For what it's worth, I'll add my voice to those who are
bothered by the two distinct uses of some (some, some-fn vs
Thank you for all of the very helpful answers about nil and some. I
understand now.
I am *very* grateful to Rich Hickey and all of the other dedicated Clojure
developers. For what it's worth, I'll add my voice to those who are
bothered by the two distinct uses of some (some, some-fn vs
truthy? = identity
falsey? = not
--
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
That’s fair.
On February 15, 2014 at 1:02:43 PM, Alex Miller (a...@puredanger.com) wrote:
truthy? = identity
falsey? = not
--
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
Actually, truthy? = boolean.
Anyway, throw everything I said in the trash. :-) No more sleepy posts to the
ML from me.
On February 15, 2014 at 1:02:43 PM, Alex Miller (a...@puredanger.com) wrote:
truthy? = identity
falsey? = not
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Alex's suggestion is a good way to determine whether the 10k clj-tuples in
a set case is being sped up by the new hash function -- just look at the
variety of values of (hash x) for all x's in the set and see whether it is
significantly more unique hash values in 1.6.0-beta1 than with 1.5.1.
As
Great job on the new release guys :)
My one bit of feedback is that if-some and when-some behave like a let, but
don't include let in the name. My guess is that this was chosen because
if-some-let and when-some-let are starting to get awkwardly long.
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Andy
Like this, just
not-nil?
if-not-nil
when-not-nil
is much better for me.
суббота, 15 февраля 2014 г., 7:12:21 UTC+4 пользователь Joel Holdbrooks
написал:
As an addendum to my last comment, *not-nil?* would also be a good
candidate. That really doesn't leave room for doubt.
This:
Clojure 1.6.0-beta1 is now available.
Try it via
- Download: http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/clojure/clojure/1.6.0-beta1
- Leiningen: [org.clojure/clojure 1.6.0-beta1]
Highlights below or see the full change log here:
https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/changes.md
We expect
Great changes! I have a question about #5.
5) New some operations
Many conditional functions rely on logical truth (where falsey
values are nil or false). Sometimes it is useful to have functions
that rely on not nilness instead. These functions have been added to
support these cases
Looking forward to this ... any ideas on submitted issues w/ valid patches
that are in limbo? (*)
(*) No good deed, such as this beta release announcement, goes unpunished.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this
Awesome! Thanks!
2014-02-14 21:47 GMT+01:00 Daniel doubleagen...@gmail.com:
Thanks to everyone involved!
On Friday, February 14, 2014 1:04:09 PM UTC-6, Alex Miller wrote:
Clojure 1.6.0-beta1 is now available.
Try it via
- Download: http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/clojure/
+1 to everything Dom Kiva-Meyer said.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andrey Antukh n...@niwi.be wrote:
Awesome! Thanks!
2014-02-14 21:47 GMT+01:00 Daniel doubleagen...@gmail.com:
Thanks to everyone involved!
On Friday, February 14, 2014 1:04:09 PM UTC-6, Alex Miller wrote:
Clojure
exists? doesn't seem right to me. Also we do use `exists?` currently in
ClojureScript since feature detection is so common in client side code and
the name seems more appropriate to me in that context. That could of course
change but we would need to coordinate.
David
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at
Dom Kiva-Meyer li...@domkm.com writes:
5) New some operations
Many conditional functions rely on logical truth (where falsey
values are nil or false). Sometimes it is useful to have functions
that rely on not nilness instead. These functions have been added to
support these cases [CLJ-1343]:
I would also like to point out that `if-some` reads like it would work
like `if-not` rather than like `if-let`.
Same applies obviously to `when-some` too.
Timothy Baldridge writes:
+1 to everything Dom Kiva-Meyer said.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andrey Antukh n...@niwi.be wrote:
Also I think the ship on overloading some already sailed with some- and
some-
David
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Dom Kiva-Meyer li...@domkm.com wrote:
Great changes! I have a question about #5.
5) New some operations
Many conditional functions rely on logical truth (where falsey
Hey Howard,
Same story as always - when we moved into the 1.6 release train, we
basically stopped putting new tickets into work so that we could stabilize
the release. That process has taken longer than I expected.
My expectation is that:
1) All of you will try out 1.6.0-beta1 as soon as
On Friday, February 14, 2014 2:27:49 PM UTC-6, DomKM wrote:
Great changes! I have a question about #5.
5) New some operations
Many conditional functions rely on logical truth (where falsey
values are nil or false). Sometimes it is useful to have functions
that rely on not nilness
On Feb 14, 2014, at 17:25 , Alex Miller a...@puredanger.com wrote:
The names of these functions were chosen by Rich. There was already some name
overloading of some even before these new functions with some (truthy) and
some-/some- (not nil). The new functions keep with the latter meaning.
As an addendum to my last comment, *not-nil?* would also be a good
candidate. That really doesn't leave room for doubt.
This:
(some? false) ;; = true
Would confuse me. On the other hand this:
(not-nil? false) ;; = true
Would not.
There's really no need to complicate the naming story
exists? is a pretty critical feature for application writers and I asked
several users about it before committing to a name. Unless Clojure decides
to adopt it, little incentive to cause unnecessary breakage.
David
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Joel Holdbrooks cjholdbro...@gmail.comwrote:
Likely discussed in #clojure IRC and I checked with some Clojure/core folks
for feedback.
David
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Joel Holdbrooks cjholdbro...@gmail.comwrote:
Right. I won't disagree with the function being critical or with avoiding
breakage. I'm just mostly whining here
Could someone clarify for me why some? as a name for not nil makes sense
at all in the first place? Not criticizing. I just don't understand what
existence or there being some of something has to do with nil.
Maybe I don't understand the intent of nil. I came to Clojure from Common
Lisp.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Mars0i marsh...@logical.net wrote:
Could someone clarify for me why some? as a name for not nil makes sense
at all in the first place? Not criticizing. I just don't understand what
existence or there being some of something has to do with nil.
nil is often
34 matches
Mail list logo
