Open fdeitylink opened 2 years ago
@fdeitylink Hi. Thanks for submitting a patch and sorry for the slow reply. I think I could be okay with something like this but instead of applying seq
it could do like m/seqable
does and accept the usual list/vector syntax. What do you think about that?
I'm not sure I get what you mean. I wrote m/sequential
to look almost exactly like m/seqable
, just with the predicate swapped out.. Do you want me to write m/sequential
in terms of m/seqable
?
Just like
seqable
but specifically forsequential?
sequences e.g. vectors and lists but not sets or maps.