Hi, Am Montag, 18. Juli 2011 16:59:40 UTC+2 schrieb Benny Tsai:
If you know that the input sequence is already sorted, then you can use > take-while and drop-while in lieu of subseq. > > (subseq (sorted-set 1 2 3 4) < 3) -> (take-while #(< % 3) [1 2 3 4]) > (subseq (sorted-set 1 2 3 4) <= 3) -> (take-while #(<= % 3) [1 2 3 4]) > (subseq (sorted-set 1 2 3 4) > 3) -> (drop-while #(<= % 3) [1 2 3 4]) > (subseq (sorted-set 1 2 3 4) >= 3) -> (drop-while #(< % 3) [1 2 3 4]) However with a different performance promise, I believe. So this is maybe the answer to OP's question: you'll have to pay the price. On data structure creation or on member access. However you might get away with some saving in case you know that your subsequence is short (in case of a two end limited subsequence) and always near the vector head. 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
