> Four is better than 32, but still.
I found the explanation for this on stackoverflow.com. Stuart Sierra
wrote,
> This is due to the definition of =, which, when given a sequence of
> arguments, forces the first 4:
>> (defn =
>> ;; ... other arities ...
>> ([x y & more]
>>(if (= x y)
Chas,
Thanks for your help. However, modifying the code to use mapcat
instead of (map println) seems to cause some chunking:
(defn tenify [n]
(do
(println \" n \")
[n n n n n n n n n n]))
=> (->> (range 50)
(mapcat list)
(mapcat tenify)
first)
" 0 "
" 1 "
" 2 "
" 3 "
0
ehanneken writes:
> I spent a long time debugging some Clojure code yesterday. The
> essence of it looked similar to this:
>
> (defn items []
> (mapcat expensive-function (range 0 4000 100)))
>
> . . . (take 5 (items)) . . .
I tried to distill the problem down by defining a non-chunking range
On Dec 31, 12:48 am, Ken Wesson wrote:
> Is mapcat also semi-eager, then?
I guess so. The Clojure 1.1 release notes also say, "Some of the
sequence processing functions (like map and
filter) are now chunk-aware and leverage this efficiency." I should
have mentioned that.
--
You received this
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:25 AM, ehanneken wrote:
> I spent a long time debugging some Clojure code yesterday. The
> essence of it looked similar to this:
>
> (defn items []
> (mapcat expensive-function (range 0 4000 100)))
>
> . . . (take 5 (items)) . . .
>
> expensive-function is a functio
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:25 AM, ehanneken wrote:
> I spent a long time debugging some Clojure code yesterday. The
> essence of it looked similar to this:
>
> (defn items []
> (mapcat expensive-function (range 0 4000 100)))
>
> . . . (take 5 (items)) . . .
>
> expensive-function is a function t
