22 Feb
2008
22 Feb
'08
7:03 p.m.
"Nikodemus Siivola" <nikodemus@random-state.net> writes:
On 2/22/08, Attila Lendvai <attila.lendvai@gmail.com> wrote:
but to be specific about length=1:
Hah, I had forgotten we already had SEQUENCE-OF-LENGTH-P :)
In that case my only objection to length=1 is the name, which is... not ugly per se, but introduces a new naming convention. No, I don't have any good alternatives to offer straightaway. :/
Ditch SEQUENCE-OF-LENGTH-P alltogether. It's an absurdily long name for something conceptually simple. Just compare (sequence-of-length-p *foo* 1) vs. (= (length *foo*) 1) -T.