On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Chanwoo Yoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for your kind exaplanation. :) To a newbie like me, list and > vector seemed that they have no significant difference.
No problem, I think everyone runs into these kinds of issues when they first look at Clojure. However, after spending some time with it, you start to see how deliberate and consistent these choices were. In this case, it would be possible to write assoc so that it handled lists, maybe by having "x" below be the position in the list where to place the new value, but a) you really aren't "assoc"iating anything, because lists don't have keys and b) there are different performance characterstics, assoc on vectors would be O(1) but assoc on lists would be O(N). Rich takes great care in trying to guarantee certain performance characteristics with functions like this, wherever he can. That's one of the reasons we have vectors in the first place, rather than just implementing them on top of lists, because vectors and lists have different performance characteristics and are useful for different things. Please someone correct me if I was off on any of the above, but I hope it's helpful regardless. Regards, - J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
