To the point (b) it seems that this posts is saying the clj's = will not be faster for keyword than string since the runtime type checking overhead is where most time is spent. So the identity part of keyword equals doesn't show its benefit here (unless these were long strings vs long keywords I suspect, but this is uncommon).
The hash code calculation stuff would add performance value though. I'm just saying I don't see how point (b) is adding performance gains in the context of what else I've read here. If the compiler (doesn't seem always possible) or map impl's or something is smart enough to not use clj's basic = impl on keywords though and use its equals directly instead, that'd sound like a win. -- 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/d/optout.
