Anyway, I would be in awe that being Closure such an expressive and elegant language its user base is really ok with an state of affairs in which:
(def primes (cons 2 (lazy-seq (filter #(prime? primes %) (drop 3 (range)))))) does not mean what it obviously should and above all means something different from: (def primes (cons 2 (lazy-seq (filter #(prime? primes %) (iterate inc 3))))) YES. I've just found out that it is (drop 3 (range)) that makes a difference there. Even this will not work anymore: (def primes (cons 2 (for [n (drop 3 (range)) :when (prime? primes n)] n))) I really hope the actual developers of the language feel differently. At least there's evidence to support that. Cheers, Jorge. Em sexta-feira, 13 de fevereiro de 2015 00:39:03 UTC-2, Justin Smith escreveu: > > Considering for the sake of argument the possibility that it is a > legitimate bug, and not a result of misusing the language features, it is a > family of bug that will be more common than most, because it reflects a > style of programming that is rare in real Clojure code. > > But it isn't a bug. > > >>> -- 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.
