On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Jan-Paul Bultmann <janpaulbultm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Therefor "turning of laziness" makes no real sense. You could say "disable > the laziness of seqs", > but that doesn't really make sense either. It's like disabling the FIFO > nature of a queue or a channel. > If you don't want the properties of a seq, then use another data structure, > like a vector.
But a lot of the language's core features are most readily available for seqs. There's mapv and filterv, but there aren't built-in versions of lots of other seq functions for vectors, right? Or any of this for non-lazy lists, right? Not that they'd be hard to write, I guess. But if you don't write them yourself and you want to avoid laziness then you end up peppering your code calls to vec or "apply list" or other things to wring out the laziness. -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 --- 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.
