On Jan 9, 6:05 am, Timothy Pratley <timothyprat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich: You make the distinction that streams are not non-caching seqs.
> I read this as meaning that they wont implement ISeq, they will
> implement IStream, but conceptually they would be a non-caching
> "sequence" (in the English phrase sense, as opposed to seq in the
> interface sense), and they should be referred to as streams because
> sequence has a well defined and different meaning.
>
> Mark: You seem unsatisfied with the promise of "streams" which to me
> sound to be precisely what you describe as "non-caching seqs".
>
> Am I missing some important point of functional difference?
>
They are very different. Again, there are no inherent definitions and
much overloading both between programming languages and English.
As I envision it, a stream is truly ephemeral. Thus it is quite
different from a sequence. If you say rest/rest/rest to a sequence,
you will get the same thing every time, whereas if you say next!/next!/
next! to a stream you will get something different every time, i.e. a
stream flows.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
