On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Marshall Bockrath-Vandegrift wrote: > >> Or have I missed a currently-available work-around among the many >> suggestions? > > You can specialize your application to avoid megamodal call sites in > tight loops. If you are working with `Cons`-order sequences, just use > `cons` instead of `conj`. If you are working with vectors, create your > own private implementation of `conj` which you *only* call on vectors. > If you are depending on operations which may/do use `conj` in tight > loops, create your own private re-implementations which don’t, such as > with any of the faster versions of `reverse` earlier in this thread. > > This is suboptimal, but it’s totally possible to work around the issue > with a little bit of analysis and profiling.
Very informative. Thanks and thanks also to Gary. If the application does lots of "list processing" but does so with a mix of Clojure list and sequence manipulation functions, then one would have to write private, list/cons-only versions of all of these things? That is -- overstating it a bit, to be sure, but perhaps not entirely unfairly -- re-implement Clojure's Lisp? -Lee -- 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
