I actually like the laziness by default but as you suggest, wish there is a way to switch it on/off for blocks of the code (rather than compiler option). Scala guys did some research and in most practical cases Lists are very short hence they are not lazy and evaluated at once. Just an interesting tidbit, not an argument.
But what really bothers me is that laziness / not laziness affects the result of evaluation as in above example. That is against some fundamental rules of FP (gotta check how Haskell does it :-P). Again, question is what map really is, and why it gotta be invertible. Let's say that we have a new collection type, a tree. And mapping every node in the tree to a new value rearranges entire construct. Having map to produce a lazy seq implies that the input must be serializable (or linear). -- 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.
