It isn't hard to write your own variation of pmap that does not do more
parallelism than you want, regardless of whether the input sequence is
chunked or not. I wrote one for a Clojure submission to the computer
language benchmarks game a year or so ago. Besides avoiding unwanted
parallelism for
Stefan Kamphausen writes:
> Chunked seqs are supposed to realize more elements than you
> consume. That's for performance reasons. But since you will only ever
> apply side-effect-free functions to seqs, that will make no
> difference, no?
Sorry, yes, I'm talking about within the code of `pmap'
Why do you think, there is a bug?
You are referring to the /code/, i.e. the implementation, of things, which
is not a defined interface. At the same time, the /documentation/ describes
the actual behavior quite well.
Chunked seqs are supposed to realize more elements than you consume. That's
f
Hi:
I found what I think might be considered a bug, but I'm not certain.
The doc-string for `pmap' just says that the passed-in function is
applied "in parallel," but the code as-written is pretty clearly
intended to keep only (+ 2 #CPUS) future-wrapped function applications
realized at a time. I
