On 08.01.2009, at 14:55, Rich Hickey wrote: > difference to the consumers of your sequence" is simply untrue. The > promise of the abstraction is not merely that the nth item/rest will > be equal - it is that it will be identical. I.e. a seq is persistent > and immutable. There's nothing wrong with Lisp's list abstraction nor > its realization as seqs in Clojure. > > Making seqs 'non-caching' makes no sense because they are no longer > the same abstraction. Lazy != ephemeral. Seqs and streams are > different abstractions.
That makes sense, but I am probably not the only one who has used lazy sequences to implement streams. It's the closest abstraction currently available in Clojure. > I've been holding off on integrating this as it is a fairly > substantial change (under the hood, no change at all for consumers), > introduces a new abstraction (though no impact until you use it), and > might delay 1.0. > > Do people want it now? I'd use it right away in a few places in my code, so for me the answer is yes. On the other hand, lazy sequences work pretty well for me as well at the moment. Perhaps the better question is how important it is to get a version 1.0 out rapidly. Personally I don't care at all, but I can understand those who do. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
