Hello Mark, Just one point :
2009/3/3 Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> > > Does this seem like a good way to choose between doall, dorun, doseq > and for to evaluate all the items in sequences? > > Ask these questions: > > Do you already have the lazy sequence in a variable or do you still > need to build it? > If you already have it, use dorun or doall. Otherwise use doseq or for. > While code inside a dorun or doall could build the sequence, using > doseq and for are considered more idiomatic/readable. > Also, they provide list comprehension features such as processing more > than one sequence and filtering with :when/:while. > > For example, instead of using the following to get a new sequence > where all the items are multiplied by two: > (doall (map #(* % 2) my-coll)) > use this: > (for [item my-coll] (* item 2)) I don't think it is a good example, since it conveys the idea that it could be interesting to use doall or for for mapping a coll to multiply its items. This example, in which there is no side effect at all in the inner loop, is really typical of the use of map ! And forcing the sequence there gives you nothing (?) Maybe a more interesting example could be something that touches global vars, or does IO, ... ? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
