Hmmm... we could talk about what's faster or measure it. Time to eat my own damn dog food, I guess :)
Traveling now, I'll run the experiments in a few days when I get back to my normal setup. Sean On Apr 21, 2:09 pm, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote: > In some languages, split-at is more performant than doing take and > drop separately. But in Clojure, split-at is simply defined as: > (defn split-at > "Returns a vector of [(take n coll) (drop n coll)]" > [n coll] > [(take n coll) (drop n coll)]) > > So by using split-at, you gain nothing other than the additional > overhead of constructing a vector and then turning around and > destructuring it. > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Michał Marczyk > > <michal.marc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One could also do > > > (defn rotate [n s] > > (let [[front back] (split-at (mod n (count s)) s)] > > (concat back front))) > > -- > 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 > athttp://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
