The same? If internally it can be faster, be faster. If not, don't change.
On Friday, June 29, 2012 6:05:37 PM UTC-4, David Nolen wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Mark Engelberg > <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It is clear that some collections *could* support a more efficient last. > > Anything with random access. Anything that supports rseq (e.g., sorted > > collections). > > And what does overloading last in this way mean for drop-last, > take-last, but-last? All sequence functions. > > David > -- 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
