I focused more on idiom than correctness (obviously). Took a risk with not much effort except to see if I could do any better with a toy problem. The answer was no, Uncle Bob's is "idiomatic" modulo some minor things.
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Steve Purcell <st...@sanityinc.com> wrote: > On 12 Jun 2010, at 16:18, Russell Christopher wrote: > > > You're right. Hope I haven't offended with the fail, I thought I had > tested it - by iterating over a range and comparing it to Uncle Bob's but > obviously I didn't do that right and then realized that factorization is > likely not O(n) anyway. I'll probably take more time next time. > > > No offense was caused. I thought I'd tinker with the code, aiming to > replace the :n & :fs with destructuring, and then got distracted by the > pedantic matter of correctness. :-) > > -Steve > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
