Reid McKenzie <rmckenzi...@gmail.com> writes:
> This suggests that |apply| is immensely expensive in general,
> and that such arity unrolling even for trivial functions would be a good
> thing. Albeit hard to build.
Wonder whether it is macroable. Something like
(def new-function
(with-arities [20]
[args]
(blah args)
[args & rest]
(apply args rest)))
which gets replaced with
(fn
([]
(blah))
([a]
(blah a))
;;...etc
([a...t]
(blah a...t))
([a...t & rest]
(apply blah a...t rest)))
Where a...t are the symbols a to t. Would this help? The function blah,
of course, would know what it's arity is, but this is true for most
higher-order functions (if functions returned their arities, I guess you
could work around this, but they don't).
So, partial would become something like...
(def partial
(with-arities [:all]
[args]
(fn [args] (args))
[args & rest]
(fn [& rst] (apply (list* args rst)))))
Just thinking aloud!
Phil
--
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.
