This is not about bureaucracy --- it's about API contract, and there is *no* * *contract to speak of for lazy sequences. Even the guarantee that it won't try to fully realize an infinite sequence is just word of mouth, and more of a common-sense guarantee than anything else.
Basically, coding against lazy seqs only imposes a burden and gives no relief in return: you *must* preserve laziness whenever applicable, but you *may not* take advantage of it by assuming any guarantees. -Marko On Friday, March 15, 2013 10:01:13 AM UTC+1, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) wrote: > > The fact that lazy-seq actually was introduced to increase laziness pretty > much shows the path. There is no official specification of Clojure you > could rely on bureaucratically. > > Kind regards > 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 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.
