Good point and fair enough - I wasn't aware of this. On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 23:41:32 UTC+10, Tassilo Horn wrote: > > > > On transients: > > At the moment, I disagree - I think that there are some situations > > where *strictly contained* mutability can make a solution simpler as > > well as possibly more efficient. I offer no proof :) > > You might be right or not, but Stephen is completely right that you > won't benefit from *transients* with respect to conciseness/simplicity. > It'll only change your code's shape from > > (loop [foo [], ...] > (if (seq ...) > (recur (conj foo ...)) > foo)) > > to > > (loop [foo (transient []), ...] > (if (seq ...) > (recur (conj! foo ...)) > (persistent foo))) > > I.e., you can't "bash them in-place" but still have to use the return > value of updating function calls. And the set of functions on transient > collections is much narrower than the set of functions on persistent > collections. So it's really only a performance optimization. > > Bye, > Tassilo >
-- 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
