I'm stopping to write this after the seq definition (bullet) to give you my exact feeling moving on. You may find that that is ok and that I will get it by the end of the page:
What I assume at this point to be true is that if I first use an iter to * consume* some of the stream, that part is used up forever. If I make a new iter, I start consuming from that point. AND if I make a seq at this point, *first* will be the next piece of data that I would have seen in the iter. That last statement isn't explicitely made, but I assume it to be true. The other thought I have at this point is, "I wonder if it's a technical reason I can't detach a seq, too . . . .and then when I do iter, I start consuming again." I'm guessing that any seq reference hanging around would then have to make a copy of the whole stream unlazilly, which would be dangerous because the unsuspecting user wouldn't know they were suffering a major performance hit. ok, back to reading. This looks really neat (from this newby's vantage point, at least). On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've started documenting the streams work I have been doing, for those > interested: > > http://clojure.org/streams > > Feedback welcome, > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
