On Jan 30, 5:44 pm, Daniel Renfer <[email protected]> wrote:
> user=> (take 0 (lazy-cat [(println 10)] [(println 20)]))
> 10
> nil
>
> What you see here is not an issue with lazy-cat, but rather an issue
> with take. The current implementation of take evaluates one more than
> the n passed to it.
Hmm, I don't think this is it. For instance,
(take 0 (lazy-cons (prn "asdf") nil))
prints nothing. (Lazy-cons doesn't need to evaluate things up-front
like lazy-cat, since lazy-cons always returns a (non-empty) seq with
at least one element).
-Jason
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
