On Mar 16, 7:58 pm, Dex Wood <slash2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On IRC we were discussing the behavior of "into", and this lead us to
> dive into core.clj to look at its implementation. We discovered that
> it was not implemented with reduce, which would produce the same
> behavior, and we also discovered that implementing it with reduce may
> have a performance advantage.
>
> I ran some preliminary benchmarks of the two algorithms. While the
> performance differences may not be that drastic, using reduce may
> improve readability and maintainability.
>
It's not really the right time for this sort of micro-optimization,
suffice to say there will be versions of into (especially for vectors)
that are faster than reduce conj.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
