To elaborate more, I know that with reducers, map for example isn't going to create the resulting sequence by using cons. That is clear to me. But, if the collections is going to call cons while reducing itself, then I'm not sure what is the benefit of reducers (besides it makes sense and makes a nice abstraction).
Thanks. 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.
