I'm sorry to say, but IMHO you failed to communicate the critical point to your audience. If your audience keeps failing to grasp the point, and communicates this failure back by asking the same question..
I do understand the distinction between a collection and a sequence and something being a collection or a sequence operation. That doesn't stop certain sequences from being capable of doing certain things in a better way. I simply do not understand the reason of clojure/rich/whoever throwing away a potential performance increase because "this operation does not operate on the correct level to be performant. If you expect this to be performant, rewrite it on a lower level." That stance seems surprisingly patronizing. Also, it seems of course clojure itself is inconsistent with regard to that design choice. At least looking at Timothy Baldridge's reply to "possible bug in reducer code" makes me think so. I mean come on, a high level operation being optimized on certain types? Heresy! Regards, -Martin -- 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
