>
> 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
>
I suppose Clojure 1.7 transducers can address this thought in a way.
e.g. (into #{} (map <some-fn>) <some-set>)
Doesn't expose any intermediate "seq state" of the collection.
--
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.
