> This would be awesome. From his talk it sounds like it shouldn't replace > PersistentVector at all, in fact you should be able to share structure with > PersistentVector right?
My understanding from the talk was that RRB-Trees have performance identical to PersistentVector as long as you don't concat or split them. So why not just replace the PersistentVector implementation with an RRB-Tree? -- 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
