On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Hugh Winkler <hwink...@gmail.com> wrote > > > Thanks! I think 'nth ought to behave just like 'first and 'second, > don't you? If it's a good idea for 'first it's a good idea for 'nth. >
It does seems like a reasonable behavior for sorted-set and sorted-map, but what else really? Also this does seem to imply a performance penalty (converting a large collection into a seq to which nth is applied). In anycase I don't know enough about the performance implications to say whether there's a reason for the current implementation of nth. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
