You're right; now that I look more closely, there is a difference between
the two expressions.
The split-with function is literally a combination of take-while and
drop-while, like so:
(defn split-with [pred coll]
[(take-while pred coll) (drop-while pred coll)])
This is important because it m
2014-07-12 11:56 GMT+02:00 James Reeves :
> The JVM optimises sections of code that are frequently executed, so the
> second expression benefits from the optimisation that happens during the
> first expression. My guess is that if you were to swap the two expressions
> around, you'd find that the
The JVM optimises sections of code that are frequently executed, so the
second expression benefits from the optimisation that happens during the
first expression. My guess is that if you were to swap the two expressions
around, you'd find that the first expression always takes longer, no matter
whi
I do the following (with range-length 1e8):
(time (let [[t d] (split-with #(< % 12) (range range-length))]
[(count d) (count t)]))
(time (let [[t d] (split-with #(< % 12) (range range-length))]
(into [] (reverse [(count t) (count d)]
This gives:
"Ela
