Erik, My experience is that you should only use filter/map if you either have a pre-existing function or you want to use a _very_ short closure (using #()). For any other case the code becomes unmanageable and then I feel that using for is the wiser choice.
I hope that they are just as efficient, but I haven't really tested it. I feel like even if it isn't right now they can be brought up to the same speed. -- http://wave.theWE.net http://twitter.com/theWE_ On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Erik Price <erikpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Konrad Hinsen > <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote: > > > > On 17 Dec 2009, at 15:44, Sean Devlin wrote: > > > > (defn map-vals [f coll] > > > (into {} (map (juxt key (comp f val)) coll)) > > vs: > > > (defmethod fmap clojure.lang.IPersistentMap > > [f m] > > (into (empty m) (for [[k v] m] [k (f v)]))) > > Are there any guidelines as to when it's appropriate to use the map > function vs a list comprehension? > > e > > -- > 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<clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > -- 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
