The first version stops as soon it encounters the first item in the collection that's too big. The second version filters the whole collection, which may lead to a major slowdown, depending on coll's relative size. It will also hang if coll is infinite. This should be better: (take-while #(<= % limit) coll)
That said, a properly written loop will always be faster that an idiomatic version using first-order functions. On Jul 22, 12:17 am, nil <ache...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh right. What you said is what I meant. I renamed the functions > improperly and then fooled myself. But I still can't figure out why > the second one is much slower. -- 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
