Hello,
I am trying to understand the rationale behind the current implementation
of some-fn and every-pred, there seems to be a couple of odd things, or
maybe that is just me misunderstanding their doc.
user ((every-pred (fn [_])))
true
user ((some-fn (fn [_])))
nil
Shouldn't the first
Max Penet m...@qbits.cc writes:
user ((every-pred (fn [_])))
true
user ((some-fn (fn [_])))
nil
Shouldn't the first example return false? since the first function
always returns nil?
No. ((every-pred a b c) o1 o2 ...) returns true if all predicates a, b,
and c return true for all given
user (every? identity [])
true
I think I understand now, this might be to match the behavior of every?.
Max
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:31:57 PM UTC+2, Max Penet wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to understand the rationale behind the current implementation
of some-fn and every-pred, there
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:49:32 PM UTC+2, Tassilo Horn wrote:
Max Penet m...@qbits.cc writes:
user ((every-pred (fn [_])))
true
user ((some-fn (fn [_])))
nil
Shouldn't the first example return false? since the first function
always returns nil?
No. ((every-pred
Max Penet m...@qbits.cc writes:
Hi Max,
user ((some-fn) no-matter-what)
false
user ((every-pred) no-matter-what)
true
e.g. (some-cn) was equivalent to (constantly false) and (every-pred) was
equivalent to (constantly true).
Yes I understand that, the proposal was just to avoid
Tassilo Horn t...@gnu.org writes:
user ((some-fn) no-matter-what)
false
user ((every-pred) no-matter-what)
true
e.g. (some-cn) was equivalent to (constantly false) and (every-pred) was
equivalent to (constantly true).
Yes I understand that, the proposal was just to avoid exceptions
Thanks, perfect, I had prepared a patch that was identical.
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:11:44 PM UTC+2, Tassilo Horn wrote:
Tassilo Horn ts...@gnu.org javascript: writes:
user ((some-fn) no-matter-what)
false
user ((every-pred) no-matter-what)
true
e.g. (some-cn) was
