Hi, I've been playing around with the Zipper code, partly to enhance it but mostly at this point to become competent with Clojure programming.
One of the first things I tried to do was produce a pair of functions for doing both depth-first and breadth-first walks though a Zipper tree. I wrote these in such a way that the caller supplied a function that would be invoked at each node of the Zippered tree in the specified traversal order. But when I started thinking about this for a bit, it occurred to me to wonder about whether a lazy sequence would be more appropriate. And in thinking about the contrast, one thing that then occurred to me was that with a lazy sequence approach, it's easy to bail out of a traversal. You just stop asking for more from the sequence. But with the "classic" inversion-of-control / callback approach, getting out early requires funky things like return values that indicate "stop" vs. "continue" or you're forced to use an exception. So would it be valid to conclude that the old inversion-of-control / callback patterns are generally contraindicated in Clojure programming in favor of lazy sequences? And if, as I suspect is the case, the answer is "yes," then when, if ever, (in new code w/o Java encumbrances) would it be a good idea to go "old school"? Randall Schulz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
