Hi Stuart, 2009/8/6 Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com>: > > On the plus side, it appears to be faster (as collections grow large), > and it doesn't "cheat" by introducing an atom. On the minus side it > isn't as pretty as the one in contrib.
While maybe not as pretty as the one in contrib, it's not a monster either. Shouldn't we aim for efficiency rather than elegance in library routines (within reason)? I think the user will appreciate the speedy version more than the pretty version. Since this change retains the original interface, I would say go for it. I'm a bit confused by the (cons (f) nil) form in the else clause. It is going to fail unless f is of 0 arity. If f is of arity 2 we get an IllegalArgumentException from eval. So wouldn't it be more correct to return an empty list? > Stu -- ! Lauri --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
