I am not saying that one would *have* to give up O(1) subvec in order to support other operations.
I am guessing, without having done a thorough analysis, that an O(log n) subvec based on RRB Trees would make most/all operations on subvec's just fall out fairly naturally, rather than having to be written as special cases. Andy On Dec 27, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Alan Busby wrote: > I'm confused why we'd need to give up O(1) just to support something like > reduce-kv on subvectors. > Isn't the implementation of subvector just a wrapper around the original > vector along with a start and end value? > > Current source here; > https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/APersistentVector.java > > I apologize if I'm missing something key here. > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Andy Fingerhut <andy.finger...@gmail.com> > wrote: > http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1082 -- 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
