The docstring on empty? should perhaps not recommend using seq instead anymore

Question

It seems the docstring on empty? is outdated, recommending to use seq to check for emptiness, even though nowodays empty? may be much faster (on counted collections):

(defn empty?
  "Returns true if coll has no items. To check the emptiness of a seq,
  please use the idiom (seq x) rather than (not (empty? x))"
  {:added "1.0"
   :static true}
  [coll]
  (if (counted? coll)
    (zero? (count coll))
    (not (seq coll))))

Answer 1

The docstring says "To check the emptiness of a seq..." which is still the preferred idiom.

Comments

Ah, thank you, I haven't read the docstring carefully enough. I read it as "a sequential collection" while it literally means "an implementation of `ISeq`"