Seems I got it totally wrong :-( I'll re-read the lazy page ...
Sorry, -- Laurent 2009/2/18 David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> > If I've been following things correct: > rest _used_ to force the seq, it does no longer. > next forces the seq > > In my own mind i'm thinking next to mean (return the seq with the next > value computed), rest now means just give me the uncomputed remaining values > of the seq. > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Laurent PETIT > <laurent.pe...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> 2009/2/18 Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Feb 18, 11:04 am, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Rob <rob.nikan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > I'm wondering if I found a bug. I have the latest source from svn >>> >> > (r1291). >>> >> >>> >> > user=> (bean 1) >>> >> > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Wrong number of args passed to: >>> >> > core$bean--5161$fn--5179$thisfn >>> >> >>> >> You sure did. The conversion to lazy-seq code appears to introduce a >>> >> paren typo and an incorrect nil pun. Patch attached. >>> >> >>> > >>> > Patch applied, svn 1293 - thanks! >>> > >>> >> Rich, I think it'd be pretty useful to have as you mentioned in IRC a >>> >> variant of & destructuring that provided an unforced lazy-seq. It >>> >> seems pretty common to want, in the body of a lazy-seq, a destructured >>> >> 'first' but an unforced 'rest'. This is already the third or fourth >>> >> time I've wanted to be able to do something like: >>> >> >>> >> (fn thisfn [plseq] >>> >> (lazy-seq >>> >> (when-let [[pkey &rest etc] plseq] >>> >> (cons (new clojure.lang.MapEntry pkey (v pkey)) >>> >> (thisfn etc))))) >>> >> >>> > >>> > Yes, sure. It just comes down to the name: >>> > >>> > &rest >>> > && >>> > >>> > others? >>> >>> Of those I prefer &rest because its meaning is more explicit. >> >> >> Maybe I miss the point totally, but didn't the recent change give the >> function 'next the meaning of not forcing the seq ? >> >> So &next instead of &rest ? ... and maybe either &rest or &next , and not >> just & anymore ? >> >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> R. Mark Volkmann >>> Object Computing, Inc. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
