Makes sense - Thanks (to all)!
Tim
On Jun 24, 8:29 pm, David Sletten wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Tim Robinson wrote:
>
> > I'm under the impression that traditional lisps have a greater
> > distinction between a cons operation vs. a list operation.
> > Specifically I had believed that c
I agree with David when he says that this is not really relevant. As
a relative newbie to Lisps I have found that Clojure, while very Lispy
in so many ways, is actually more different than I initially thought.
It is really a hybrid of many languages wrapped in s expressions,
which is what makes
On Jun 24, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Tim Robinson wrote:
> I'm under the impression that traditional lisps have a greater
> distinction between a cons operation vs. a list operation.
> Specifically I had believed that consing was a more efficient and
> better performing operation than using list.
>
Thi
It might be better to link to the main Clojure github repo for viewing
the source in case things have changed since some random fork...
https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/Cons.java
https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/PersistentList.j
This stackoverflow page seems to have some info that might help:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3008411/clojure-seq-cons-vs-list-conj
Source for Cons:
https://github.com/hiredman/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/Cons.java
Source for PersistentList:
https://github.com/hiredman/clojure/b
I'm under the impression that traditional lisps have a greater
distinction between a cons operation vs. a list operation.
Specifically I had believed that consing was a more efficient and
better performing operation than using list.
Is this true? and if so, given both the Cons and Lists are actual
