On Nov 11, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
>
> To dupe, this is my really-fast definition of seq-reverse,
..."really fast" is supposed to mean "really quickly written" not "highly
performance optimized"...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Cl
On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
>> In my opinion, its promise is that it reverses anything that supports the
>> minimal seq interface. Its implementation can be pluggable via protocols
>
> Hmm, don't protocols have some
I like this! It would be very helpful to have a type-hinted arglist(So
I know it takes a seq and a number), and :similar to group things like
map, pmap, amap, and :for for functions which are made for a specific
thing, like swap! or deref.
On Nov 11, 1:04 am, Michael Gardner wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
> In my opinion, its promise is that it reverses anything that supports the
> minimal seq interface. Its implementation can be pluggable via protocols
Hmm, don't protocols have some overhead? Switching an implementation
from a direct, possibl
On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Alan wrote:
> I guess you stay backwards-compatible by putting it in the docstring,
> but isn't it more general, clean, and programmatic to put these useful
> bits of information into new entries in (meta f)?
That's pretty much what I was trying to get at with "struct
I guess you stay backwards-compatible by putting it in the docstring,
but isn't it more general, clean, and programmatic to put these useful
bits of information into new entries in (meta f)?
On Nov 10, 3:14 pm, Carson wrote:
> > But perhaps it should be more clear. What if there were some additio
> But perhaps it should be more clear. What if there were some additional
> structured fields for each doc entry, like "performance guarantees" and "see
> also"?
That's a good idea. I've found "See Also" sections useful in man
pages, for example. And if performance guarantees are part of the
s
On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 10.11.2010 um 17:37 schrieb Gary Poster:
>
>> But that's exactly my point. Why should developers have to remember to use
>> rseq on a vector, as the first example? Why can't reverse simply be part of
>> a protocol, so that i
On Nov 10, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Michael Gardner wrote:
> The docstring for reverse does say "not lazy", which implies at least O(n).
In the general case, that is. As Meikel mentioned, reverse works on any seq, so
this is the best guarantee it can provide in general.
--
You received this message
On Nov 10, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Carson wrote:
>> rseq O(1), reverse O(n).
>> peek O(1), last O(n).
>> pop O(1), butlast O(n).
>> get O(1), nth O(n).
>
> I don't see that in the documentation... If these functions aren't
> "collapsed", then it's better if at least (doc reverse) says something
> abo
Hi,
Am 10.11.2010 um 17:37 schrieb Gary Poster:
> But that's exactly my point. Why should developers have to remember to use
> rseq on a vector, as the first example? Why can't reverse simply be part of
> a protocol, so that it gives O(1) when it can? Is there *any* practical
> value to hav
> rseq O(1), reverse O(n).
> peek O(1), last O(n).
> pop O(1), butlast O(n).
> get O(1), nth O(n).
I don't see that in the documentation... If these functions aren't
"collapsed", then it's better if at least (doc reverse) says something
about O(n) and "see rseq".
Carson
On Nov 10, 8:16 am, Meik
Not to veer a hijack, but a 'popular' or common functions group could
be useful for people learning clojure. It could be assembled by taking
the number of occurrences in a set of code or by being hand-picked by
people-who-should-know. Everyone who uses clojure should have an idea
of everything tha
On Nov 10, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10 Nov., 17:09, Gary Poster wrote:
>
>> I believe that the cost of having developers remember both rseq and reverse
>> (why can't reverse just DTRT if it is given a vector?), last and peek
>> (same), butlast and pop (same),
Hi,
On 10 Nov., 17:09, Gary Poster wrote:
> I believe that the cost of having developers remember both rseq and reverse
> (why can't reverse just DTRT if it is given a vector?), last and peek (same),
> butlast and pop (same), and nth and get (same) is unnecessarily high.
Ehm. No.
rseq O(1),
On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Pepijn de Vos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It occurred to me that Clojure has a huge core namespace. While OO languages
> like Python and Java stuff functions into modules and objects and have a core
> of a few dozen functions, Clojure's core contains everything you might
16 matches
Mail list logo
