(source ->>)
--
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
clojure+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
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
(if (seq? form)
(with-meta `(~(first form) ~@(next form) ~x) (meta form))
(list form x))]
where seq?, as distinct from seq, does not check whether there is anything in the sequence.