When the collection is reducing itself, it is going to create a sequence and call cons, conj or something like. If this is true, then I'm not sure what reducers is bringing to the table. Because according to what I read, by using reducers, map/filter functions aren't going to create and allocate cons.
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:58:18 PM UTC+2, Aleš Roubíček wrote: > > Resulting function is passed to reduction function as an recipe, how to > process the data. Collections implements CollReduce protocol. When you call > reduce function it will delegate the work to concrete implementation of the > protocol. -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
