Re: Documentation of lazy-cat should contain a warning

Hi, Am 31.01.2009 um 15:55 schrieb André Thieme: On 31 Jan., 02:47, Jason Wolfe wrote: I think this behavior is as-intended, although I agree that it is confusing. I am worried that you could be right. That’s why I suggested to modify the doc string of lazy-cat. In my opinion the real step

Re: Documentation of lazy-cat should contain a warning

On 31 Jan., 02:47, Jason Wolfe wrote: > I think this behavior is as-intended, although I agree that it is > confusing. I am worried that you could be right. That’s why I suggested to modify the doc string of lazy-cat. In my opinion the real step that needs to be done is to go away from making ni

Re: Documentation of lazy-cat should contain a warning

Ok, I take it back. (no pun intended) I know that this used to be a problem, but looking through my email history, it appears that the over-eager take was reported by Chouser, and subsequently fixed by Rhickey. On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 9:47 AM, André Thieme wrote: > > On 31 Jan., 02:44, Daniel R

Re: Documentation of lazy-cat should contain a warning

On 31 Jan., 02:44, Daniel Renfer wrote: > user=> (take 0 (lazy-cat [(println 10)] [(println 20)])) > 10 > nil > > What you see here is not an issue with lazy-cat, but rather an issue > with take. The current implementation of take evaluates one more than > the n passed to it. I don’t think so:

Re: Documentation of lazy-cat should contain a warning

On Jan 30, 5:44 pm, Daniel Renfer wrote: > user=> (take 0 (lazy-cat [(println 10)] [(println 20)])) > 10 > nil > > What you see here is not an issue with lazy-cat, but rather an issue > with take. The current implementation of take evaluates one more than > the n passed to it. Hmm, I don't thi

Re: Documentation of lazy-cat should contain a warning

I think this behavior is as-intended, although I agree that it is confusing. The reason for this stems from the fact that lazy-cat returns a seq, and the only allowed representation for the empty seq is "nil" (i.e., Java null). Thus, lazy-cat must always do enough evaluation to know whether to r

Re: Documentation of lazy-cat should contain a warning

user=> (take 0 (lazy-cat [(println 10)] [(println 20)])) 10 nil What you see here is not an issue with lazy-cat, but rather an issue with take. The current implementation of take evaluates one more than the n passed to it. So in this case, 1 element of the seq is evaluated and "10" is printed.