On Jun 13, 9:57 pm, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The filter and map functions produce lazy seqs, so the sequence is
> > only walked once.
>
> Well, isn't walking 3 different sequences 1 time almost equivalent (in
> terms of computer work) to walking 3 times one sequence ?
Well, I guess there's the overhead of wrapping it in multiple seqs,
but the logic calculations will be the same regardless of which method
is used.
> And nevertheless, if I insist, it's not really because there *could*
> be a performance problem (though I guess there will, but only
> benchmark would tell), but rather because the essence of the problem
> seems to be needing a simple reduction with early break capability,
> and no more :-)
Well, I kinda disagree here. It seems to me that this:
(defn interesting? [pixels c]
(> c (count (take c (filter in-interval? pixels))))
Is more straightforward than:
(defn interesting? [pixels c]
(reduce (fn [counter pixel] (if (in-interval? pixel) (inc counter)
counter))
0
pixels
(partial < c)))
- James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
