Hi Meikel, Thanks for your response. This is in relation to something I am working on. And for my problem,
1. Computation of f is very very cheap 2. The subsequences can be very large by themselves to the extent that it may not fit in memory. 3. I don't mind the effort of waiting a little extra to avoid writing un-composable code. do you think my implementation will meet these requirements. Thanks, Sunil. P.S>Basically I am just trying to join very large csv files which are sorted on the key to be joined. There could be duplicates in the keys. On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) <m...@kotka.de>wrote: > Hi Sunil, > > your version pays a price when f is expensive since it is applied twice. > It is sufficient to wrap the drop into a lazy-seq. > > (shameless-self-promotion " > http://kotka.de/blog/2011/04/Beauty_in_a_bug.html";) > > Meikel > > -- > 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 -- 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
