Those will work and are quite clear to me.

You could argue that using eg. a set as a predicate might be more idiomatic.

(boolean (#{:rows :columns} axis)) I suppose. Though boolean is unnecessary if you only care about truthy (or nil), not strictly true (or false). See https://blog.jdriven.com/2020/06/clojure-goodness-using-sets-as-functions/#:~:text=A%20set%20in%20Clojure%20is,for%20example%20in%20collection%20functions

Clojure 1.11.1
user=> (#{:a :b} :a)
:a
user=> (#{:a :b} :c)
nil
user=> (if (#{:a :b} :a) "included" "not included")
"included"

yes i only care about "truthy"

thanks i like the set as a function idiom

consistent with the rest of the app map key as a function

imo contains? is clearer because it describes what you're doing without relying on the weird fact that a set is a function. otoh contains? is confusing with other collections.

Yeah it's really nice. E.g. see docstring of some. https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/some

One little 'gotcha' though: https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/some#example-54b80c5ce4b0e2ac61831cb9

oh I see.. seems like contains? overcome this though

Same problem I would think.

Use clojure not clj

Use -P

what is -P ?

I see