On 2010 Apr 28, at 6:55 PM, Stuart Halloway wrote:
Specializations are available where there is a clear use case, e.g.
contains?, peek (instead of last), disj, etc.
...
Tying to concrete types is limiting. *Never* having special purpose
fns that know about performance characteristics is also limiting.
contains?/seq-contains? mark a divide where it is very easy for a
language to quietly help programmers do the wrong thing.
Such as littering my application code with type-checks to decide if it
should call contains? or seq-contains?
That seems exactly the wrong thing to do.
Please explain how making seq-contains? fast for sets and maps is
wrong (exactly how does it violate some contract and what contract,
explicitly is that a violation of) and application code type checking
is right, because I really don't understand why making seq-contains?
fast isn't just a huge win-win.
-Doug
--
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
