ifn?, not fn?
Closed this issue · 1 comments
puredanger commented
Any use of fn? should probably be ifn?.
In general, a lot of these look over-speced to me. With something as generic and hopefully amenable to future additive evolution as core, it's important not to confuse a current implementation with a specification of all cases for all time. Figuring out where that line is, is super hard. I would encourage you to think as generically as possible.
I'll try to file a few independent issues like this, but that's general advice.
borkdude commented
Good point. We had a fn? issue before where this:
was passed to reduce.