Hi Laurent, On 14 Apr., 09:42, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't it seem counter intuitive to you that the lazy version is the > fastest ? > > What could explain the result of your tests ? (I'm really curious !) This is exactly the question I had earlier in this thread. :) I was also surprised by the result. Hence my confusion about the gist of Kevin. I thought it was trying to explain something rather than being just a different implementation. One difference between the original version and the lazy-version, is that the original version builds a higher stack of concats while the lazy version just builds a simple sequence, which could a reason for its better performance. But the doesn't explain the other results. Please show me my mistake. :) 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
