Why would you (remove nil? (map f coll))? That's what keep is for:
(keep f coll).

On Feb 24, 11:20 am, Cedric Greevey <cgree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, JuanManuel Gimeno Illa
>
> <jmgim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I don't understand of your solution is the (map seq (step pieces))
> > because for me it is clear that each of the sequences generated by step is a
> > seq, so why do you need to seq it?
>
> It's the combination of (remove nil? (map seq ...)) that gets rid of
> the empty seqs in cases like (split-at-subsequence [3 4] [1 2 3 4 3 4
> 5 6]). I don't know if it's any more efficient than (remove empty?
> ...) though. But if the inner loop were modified so no empty seqs that
> weren't already nil could be generated, it could be reduced to just
> (remove nil? ...) and be more efficient then.

-- 
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

Reply via email to