On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:42:13 PM UTC, Nils Bertschinger wrote:
It solves a
common problem, namely to drop the last element of a sequence and
reads better in this case than the equivalent idiom using drop-last.
I don't quite get it. How does (butlast x) read better than
Hi,
you're right that drop-last is more general than butlast. So why does
butlast exist at all?
I would say, that it is there for a very good reasons. It solves a
common problem, namely to drop the last element of a sequence and
reads better in this case than the equivalent idiom using drop-last.
Hi,
Why keep both butlast and drop-last in clojure.core? The latter has the
advantage that it's lazy and can drop off more than one element from the
end of a seq. In contrast, I can't think of any advantage of butlast,
except that it seems to be slightly (ca 20%) faster than (doall (drop-last
