How about replacing (drop-last sibs) with (remove vector? sibs) ? remove will not access the next seq member in advance and the only vector in sibs is the last element. I tried this change and it works for the test code from the original post.
On Feb 12, 4:43 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Marko Topolnik > > <marko.topol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Just guessing, but is it something to do with this (from the docstring > >> > of parse-seq)? > > >> > "it will be run in a separate thread and be allowed to get > >> > ahead by queue-size items, which defaults to maxint". > > > As I've figured it out, when there's XPP on the classpath, and I'm > > using it, the code that does the parsing is entirely different and > > does not involve a separate thread (see with_pull.clj). The parser > > sits and waits for events to be requested from the lazy seq. > > Yes, XPP is superior to SAX, especially for this sort of laziness. > > >> Finally, you might want to be able to walk an XML document larger > >> than would fit in memory. I'm not sure if lazy-xml has ever been > >> able to do this as it would need to be vigilant about not > >> retaining the root of the returned document tree. > > > I was under the impression that if the client was careful to lose the > > nodes' parents, they would be free for garbage collection, as well as > > previous siblings. The point is to first navigate to the > > desired :content lazy seq and then lose all other refs. Then you are > > in the same position as with any old lazy seq -- you run through it > > without retaining the head, and things are good. > > It may work, but wasn't a design goal when I was originally writing > lazy-xml, so it's possible I have stray head- or root-holding in the > code. > > The problem you're observing is because of my use of drop-last, which > forces the parsing of one extra sibling at *each* level of the tree. > In your test case, this is a *lot* of extra parsing at exactly the > point where you don't want it. The drop-last is used because the last > node of each interior sequence holds the non-descendant events and so > must be dropped from the content seq. > > I'm currently trying to come up with a different way of passing around > the non-descendant events so that drop-last isn't necessary, but it's > ...tricky, at least for my poor fuzzy brain. > > --Chouserhttp://joyofclojure.com/ -- 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
