On 15 Mar 2013, at 07:04, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) <m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> this highly depends on the sequence function at hand. Usually they are > guaranteed to be as lazy as possible. But the are two aspects: a) sometimes > you need to look ahead to actually perform the action (eg. take-while or > drop-while) and b) sometimes there might be a bug in the implementation and > it is not as lazy as it could be. You can't do anything about a). And b) is > very unlikely but also happened in the past. So the word I'm interested in in that sentence is "guaranteed". I can see, from reading the source, what's "guaranteed" by a particular lazy structure and/or function. But that's just a statement about the current implementation, which might change in a future version of the language/library. Are these guarantees stated anywhere, or is my only recourse reading the source and/or experimenting with examples? -- paul.butcher->msgCount++ Snetterton, Castle Combe, Cadwell Park... Who says I have a one track mind? http://www.paulbutcher.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbutcher MSN: p...@paulbutcher.com AIM: paulrabutcher Skype: paulrabutcher -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
