Hi Cody ! On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:41 PM, cody koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 12:31 pm, Jarkko Oranen <chous...@gmail.com> wrote > > Forcing them into a single string at the end would wasteful in case > > the user intends to write the output into a stream (which can be done > > a fragment at a time.) Thus, leaving the choice to the user seems like > > a good decision. > > > > Or maybe it's just a lazy seq, in which case using str on it would > > force it to be strict. :) > > Just to clarify . . . in order for this to be useful in practice, > wouldn't the following be necessary: > > 1. Disable buffering in whatever server is being used to send the data > (which in the case of http means losing the content-length header). > fixed-size buffering is useful (and isn't antagonist to the seq of strings approach) and should not be disabled 2. Lazy evaluation of all arguments to the template. I consider a seq of strings as a kind of rope [1]: when I decided to return a seq of strings rather than a single string I was after efficient concat and shared representations, lazyness of those seqs is contingent. Christophe [1] minus indexing but indexing is evil :-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
