Thanks a lot for your very detailed response Chouser! report-seq is a very useful way to look at this stuff.
> ... > Unless I've completely misunderstood your scenario, I think this > demonstrates that the seq abstraction as it currently exists is > sufficient for providing the kind of laziness you need. That does satisfy my requirements as a lazy stack data structure. However, it does so by adding an inner level of cons objects; this is more or less equivalent to just calling (delay) on each level of the seq and then having to explicitly (force) each time an element is extracted. With either workaround, the built-in seq functions are no longer directly applicable. I can't call filter directly on an mstk, for example. This isn't a big deal, I was mostly just curious why the seq abstraction was set up this way. Thanks, Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
