Jim, Thanks for the idioms, I appreciate it!
And thanks everyone for the help! On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:43:40 AM UTC-5, Jim foo.bar wrote: > > On 21/01/14 13:11, Chris Perkins wrote: > > This part: (some #{hashed} already-seen) is doing a linear lookup in > > `already-seen`. Try (contains? already-seen hashed) instead. > > +1 to that as it will become faster... > > I would also add the following not so related to performance: > > (drop1 (line-seqf)) ==> (next(line-seqf)) > > > (ifseen? nil [url hashed]) ==> (when-not seen?[url hashed]) > > (ifseen? nil hashed) ==>(when-not seen? hashed) > > (if(seq(restlines))... ==> (if(seqlines)... > > > I actually think the last one is a bug...it seems to me that you are > skipping one row in the condition...you pass (rest lines) every time you > recurse yes? > checking for more lines should be done for *all* current lines, not (rest > current-lines)...unless I 've misunderstood something... > > > Jim > > > -- -- 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.