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
