On 21 April 2010 20:09, 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.
I realise that, however I find that there is also a slight gain in readability / aesthetic appeal of the code; buying that at the minute cost incurred due to creating and destructuring a vector seems acceptable to me. As an aside, it might actually be possible to write a more efficient split-at -- perhaps exploiting the nature of the sequence being split (e.g. you could use (seq (subvec ...)) with vectors) -- should the need arise, so maybe it will become beneficial from the performance POV at some point... Sincerely, Michał -- 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
