Rich Hickey a écrit : > I think you lose the game overall. I'm sorry if I sounded provocative, I was trying to better understand the model you propose with streams. Thanks for your answer: it made thinks clearer to me.
> With what you are proposing: > > (if (seq astream) > (do-something-with (first astream)) > > is broken. > Indeed you're right: astream can change between the two calls to (seq astream). > More generally, I guess I simply don't understand these use cases for > treating the stream as a seq and subsequently mutating it. It's not a use case, it's the mere angst of nasty bugs basically due to: (seq astream) ... (stream-iter astream) not raising an exception when someone inadvertently mixing seq fns and stream fns. Now (rev 1228) I get an "Already iterating" exception so I'm happy. Christophe --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
