It does make me wonder, however, if having the lazy-seq cache things is sort of conflating laziness and consistency, since as you point out, not all ISeq implementations do any sort of caching.
I wonder if it would be interesting to decompose it into 'lazy- seq' (uncached), and 'cached-seq'. I understand that this is unlikely to ever happen, but it occurred to me last night when I was idly thinking about this. On Nov 4, 2:03 pm, Paul Mooser <taron...@gmail.com> wrote: > I completely understand the difference between the ISeq interface, and > the particular implementation (lazy-seq) that results in these > problems. It would be fairly straightforward, I think, to write some > kind of uncached-lazy-seq which doesn't exhibit these problems, but > I've felt that is sidestepping and issue and introduces issues of its > own. > > On Nov 4, 1:16 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Both those examples retain the head, but since 'incs' isn't > > a lazy-seq, the intermediate values can be garbage-collected. > > Note the difference between the seq abstraction and the lazy-seq > > implementation. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
