Hi, On 28 Nov., 14:37, "Michael Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I assume (count largecoll) and (empty? largecoll) would be more > efficient than (seq largecoll)?
Since empty? is implemented as #(not (seq %)) there is no difference for those. count is O(1) for maps, sets, vectors and lists. I think, that seq is also O(1). It just provides a view on a collection. Setting up the view can be as easy as setting a counter to zero (or even just returning the collection as in case of a list). But there might be pathological examples, where this is not the case. Sincerely Meikel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
