On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Am 29.12.2010 um 19:36 schrieb Ken Wesson: > >> > > >> >> Who needs to muck about with the stack and recur when you've got > >> >> laziness? :) > >> > > >> > Even then you have to take care, because stacking lazy seq on lazy seq > >> > on … might also result in a stackoverflow. > >> > >> True, but it's far less common to have lazy operations like maps > >> nested 100,000 deep than it is to have seqs 100,000 items long. :) > > > > You only need to nest lazy operations 1000 levels deep before you blow > the > > stack w/ default JVM settings (on OS X, I imagine it's similar for other > > systems). > > Eww. Apple's JVM sucketh greatly. I'd be surprised if the default > maximum stack depth isn't at *least* 32,768 on Sun's Hotspot, given > how rarely I get SOEs outside of actually unbounded recursions (and > how blasted long the resulting traces are when they're dump into my > repl! So much for using backscroll afterward). > Doh, actually, I might have been messing around with my JVM stack size recently. I see that the default stack depth on OS X is more like ~43000 :) David -- 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
