On Oct 3, 5:21 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. If it is important to get access bounded by the subvector's N you
> can just call vec on it, at a one-time O(subvecN) cost.
>
> It is important to note that for vectors that are created by vec (and
> literals) that have never been up
On Oct 3, 10:59 am, Cesare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 4:42 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 10:12 am, Cesare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Subvectors can be created in constant time because they copy nothing
> > and share structure with the original. So, th
On Oct 3, 4:42 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:12 am, Cesare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subvectors can be created in constant time because they copy nothing
> and share structure with the original. So, they are effectively views
> on the original vector, and share its a
On Oct 3, 10:12 am, Cesare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm reading the Clojure documentation and there is something I don't
> understand about vector functions.
>
> "Vectors support access to items by index in log32N hops"
>
> but this seems in contrast with the fact that 'subvec' i
Hi All,
I'm reading the Clojure documentation and there is something I don't
understand about vector functions.
"Vectors support access to items by index in log32N hops"
but this seems in contrast with the fact that 'subvec' is O(1) (few
lines later).
If subvec was O(1), it would be possible t
