Thank you David for looking into this so quickly. For now I am working around this by not destructuring, but I look forward to the patch. Thanks.
-Frank On Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:41:39 PM UTC-5, dmiller wrote: > > The difference is that the JVM version is correct and the CLR > implementation has a bug. > > I'll fix it in the current branch and try to get a patched 1.4 out as soon > as I can. > > -- Above is all you really need to know, but I find myself forced to > continue. :) -- > > This bug has sitting there from the first commit in the public repo. (That > would be early 2009.) The line of code in question is testing for the > IList interface. The line has a comment that the JVM implementation > changed from IList to RandomAccess, which has no equivalent in the CLR. I > didn't know why the change was made, so I left it alone. (The history is > lost, but I can place the JVM version change between Nov 08 and Feb 09.) > Four years later, I've just discovered the reason. The bug only surfaces > in certain circumstances on infinite (lazy) sequences -- and specifically > it is triggered by destructuring. LazySeq itself is not the problem -- > that's used everywhere. > > -David > > > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:23:05 AM UTC-6, ffailla wrote: >> >> I believe I have discovered differing behavior between the JVM and CLR >> implementations when running the following statement: >> >> user> (let [foo (repeatedly (fn [] (let [r (rand)] >> (println "in-repeat: " r) >> r))) >> [f & rst] foo] >> (println "return: " f)) >> >> When run on the JVM with clojure 1.4.0, I get the following output: >> >> in-repeat: 0.6929552277817549 >> in-repeat: 0.7005322422752974 >> return: 0.6929552277817549 >> nil >> user> >> >> When run on the CLR with clojure-clr 1.4.0, the random number will be >> printed from "in-repeat" infinitely, never to return. >> >> Is this difference between the JVM and CLR implementations when >> destructuring a lazy sequence known? >> >> Also, why was the random number printed twice on the JVM side. I haven't >> looked an the implementation, but I would guess this would be due to >> chunking the sequence. Thanks. >> >> -Frank Failla >> > -- 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
