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 args o1, o2, and so one. You don't pass
any args, so this is basically (and), which also returns true. `and` is
true if all arguments are logically true, which is trivially given when
none are provided.
> I was also wondering if it would make sense to add a 0 argument
> version of these, it would make their usage with apply more
> convenient, and comp which has a smiliar signature behaves like that:
>
> user> ((comp) true)
> true
>
> user> ((some-fn) true)
> ; Evaluation aborted.
>
> user> ((every-pred) true)
> ; Evaluation aborted.
(comp) is `identity` which makes sense. What would the semantics be for
every-pred and some-fn? IMO, it should be
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).
Bye,
Tassilo