I really fail to see how this can be related to chunking. So in: (def primes (cons 2 (lazy-seq (filter #(prime? primes %) (drop 3 (range))))))
*prime?* would be being called with unbound *primes*? And no exception would be raised and again no 4 or even numbers left to testify? Em sexta-feira, 13 de fevereiro de 2015 01:38:19 UTC-2, Justin Smith escreveu: > > Clojure is quite elegant, but it's not always unsurprising. > > Even if one surprising behavior around lazy-seq realization is changed, > others are likely to continue to occur. > > The solution to this is to not write code that implicitly relies on a > specific timing of lazy realization. If you need results to be calculated > in a certain scope, force them, and if you need results to be maximally > lazy in order to have correct code, then either force results not to chunk > (there are code examples for a "dechunk" function on the net) or refactor > to a form that doesn't rely on maximal laziness for correctness. As far as > I know, chunked sequences are not likely to leave the language any time > soon, and the behavior we see here will inevitably happen with chunked > inputs. > > > -- 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.
