Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement Enum.member? #992

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 29, 2013
Merged

Implement Enum.member? #992

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 29, 2013

Conversation

meh
Copy link
Contributor

@meh meh commented Apr 29, 2013

No description provided.

josevalim pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2013
@josevalim josevalim merged commit 6c0d43c into elixir-lang:master Apr 29, 2013
@meh meh deleted the enum-member branch April 29, 2013 15:59
@@ -1549,6 +1571,20 @@ defmodule Enum do
{ :lists.reverse(list_acc), acc }
end

## member?

def do_member?(:stop, _, _) do
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't these funcs be defined as private (defp) like the others?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, Please send a PR of they are still public!

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, Oskar Boethius Lissheim <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

In lib/elixir/lib/enum.ex
#992 (comment):

@@ -1549,6 +1571,20 @@ defmodule Enum do
{ :lists.reverse(list_acc), acc }
end

  • member?

  • def do_member?(:stop, _, _) do

Shouldn't these funcs be defined as private (defp) like the others?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/pull/992/files#r54798954.

José Valimwww.plataformatec.com.br
http://www.plataformatec.com.br/Founder and Director of R&D

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants