Hi, On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:33:54PM -0400, Douglas Philips wrote:
> >> (let [[s1 & s1tail] seq1 > > > >Don't use this destructuring in this case, because it forces again the > >realisation of the seq one step ahead. > > If I need s1 anyways, what is the "one step ahead part" that you > refer to? > That is just my translation of the Haskell idiom. I'm sad to see > that there > isn't a parallel clojure idiom with the lazy semantics. In the above destructuring the first element of s1tail is also realised. That is what I mean with "one step ahead". I'm not sure why it is done like this. I does not seem necessary. But I'm not an expert in the destructuring code… Sincerely Meikel -- 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
