On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, Dave Sann wrote: > for example: seq on a set cannot be pure unless you were to provide an > argument to explicitly specify which order the items should be in. If you do > not do this, the order is defined either by some random interaction of the of > the data and function implementations - that you thought was irrelevant - or > has to be literally picked at random by the implementation. The former of > these will appear to be pure until you hit the special cases.
This is exactly one of the reasons a bunch of folk ( aka, purests maybe ) don't like that map/filter etc. in Clojure convert the input collection into seqs, unlike Haskell or others where the those monad laws keep you in check that map/filter return the _same_ container - so mapping a `set` would yield another `set` - also with no guaranteed order, and also with uniqueness applied - so technically a map over a set may yield a collection of an equal or smaller size, but never greater. This seems to fuel a lot of debate when entered into - so I guess I'm asking for trouble in replies here :) Mark -- Mark Derricutt http://www.theoryinpractice.net http://www.chaliceofblood.net http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt http://twitter.com/talios http://facebook.com/mderricutt -- 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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
