You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clo...@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
For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I suspect it’s done for consistency with the source of -> (which has to use first/next because it threads the expression between them) – using first/next/x in ->> is therefore a closer parallel to using first/x/next in -> so it’s easier to see the similarity (and correctness) of the code.
Sean Corfield -- (970) FOR-SEAN -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood
where seq?, as distinct from seq, does not check whether there is anything in the sequence.