ue
>>
>> If the maps themselves need to be shared, you'll have to make your own
>> version of assoc, dissoc, maybe conj & into, etc etc, and remember to
>> always use them. It could get complicated.
>>
>> --Leif
>>
>> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 1
sion of assoc, dissoc, maybe conj & into, etc etc, and remember to
> always use them. It could get complicated.
>
> --Leif
>
> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 10:27:29 PM UTC-4, Mike Fikes wrote:
>>
>> Are there common techniques or idioms for achieving structural shar
ed to be shared, you'll have to make your own
version of assoc, dissoc, maybe conj & into, etc etc, and remember to
always use them. It could get complicated.
--Leif
On Saturday, May 3, 2014 10:27:29 PM UTC-4, Mike Fikes wrote:
>
> Are there common techniques or idioms for achie
ing structural sharing
> when composing data where equivalences exist?
>
> (My motivation is to reduce heap usage for a particular problem I'm
> working on that involves a lot of repeated data.)
>
> As a specific example, consider sharing equivalent map values:
>
> (def m1 {
Are there common techniques or idioms for achieving structural sharing when
composing data where equivalences exist?
(My motivation is to reduce heap usage for a particular problem I'm working
on that involves a lot of repeated data.)
As a specific example, consider sharing equivalen
