I understand that sets or hash maps are more efficient structures for lookups. However, in certain cases (especially if I'm programming something interactively), I have either short lists or data which is naturally a list that will be faster to walk through than to convert it to a set (which implicitly assumes I'll walk through it). Anyway, point taken, but I'm not sure that completely addresses the question I'm posing.
On Jan 29, 3:23 pm, Achim Passen <achim.pas...@gmail.com> wrote: > My guess is that the omission of includes? in core is not an oversight > after all, but an incentive to pick the right data structure for the > task at hand. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
