But elisp vectors can't be accessed like lists, try running "car" on one.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Warren Lynn <wrn.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here is "another language" elisp: > > Anybody who use Emacs can do this: > > (subseq (make-vector 5 10) 2 4) => [10 10] > (subseq '(10 10 10 10 10) 2 4) => (10 10) > > As simple as that. Is that even worth the debate? :-) > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:30:25 AM UTC-4, Warren Lynn wrote: >> >> Some of my thoughts: >> >> 1. The argument that other languages do not have a similar thing is not >> valid. If that is valid, we don't need Clojure in the first place. >> >> 2. The argument that other people did not raise the issue before and not >> enough people support it so this is a non-issue is also not valid. If that >> is valid, the vote-based committee designed language will be the best, and >> also the most popular language will be the best. Of course, I do need >> people's support so the change will happen, but that is different from the >> issue itself. >> >> 3. Simplicity is defined as "constant time" operation is really weird >> here to me. Simplicity in my view is a clear abstraction so conceptually >> things behavior consistently, regardless the time. The user himself knows >> that counting a sequence will take longer than vector, so it is his choice >> to use vector of sequence. But counting is still counting, and he does not >> need to have to choose between"countvec" or "countseq". That is what >> abstraction is about. >> >> 4. Back to my original need. I need to use vector a lot because I deal >> with large data set for numeric processing. When I extract a segment from >> the vector, I still want it to be a vector. Of course it is doable even now >> (with "vec" you can convert a sequence back to vector). But when I am >> writing some basic routines, I don't want to limit them to vector as they >> may be useful for sequence too. Still, I can write separate versions or >> with a lot of conditions as someone else did. But are we trying to achieve >> something better than doable here? >> >> 5. The solution is really simple. Add one or two functions as I suggested >> before. I don't see any downside of that. >> >> -- > 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 > -- ______________________________________ Note new email address jbholl...@gmail.com -- 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
