Richard--- It's not the same thing: (class (doall (map (fn [x] x) [1 2 3]))) -> clojure.lang.LazySeq
whereas (class (binding [*strict* true] (map (fn[x] x) [1 2 3]))) -> clojure.lang.LazilyPersistentVector Also, having a dynamic var that turns laziness on and off would allow you to do it once for any given scope, without having to add the extra 'ceremony' of doalls. To quote Mark Engleberg: "If you want to choose code simplification over laziness, it's not always even clear how to do that safely. For example, it's not uncommon to end up with lazy sequences of lazy sequences [...], and then a single doall isn't going to the trick. Wrapping doall around every single call in your code is unrealistic. " I would add to that that casting your types back to what they were is also unrealistic. If there were a *strict* dynamic var, then you \could choose code simplification over laziness with a single line. What would be wrong with that? -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
