On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If you have a lazy sequence with side-effects, you almost certainly > don't want to let it out of your sight. You're likely to get very > strange behavior unless you're exceedingly careful. Most likely, if > you've got a lazy seq with side effects you should force it with dorun > or doall immediately. Use doall if you care about the values in the > produced seq, otherwise use dorun. > > This means that dorun should almost always show up right next to the > form producing the lazy seq, which means doseq is very likely a better > choice, as it is more efficient and usually more succinct than dorun > combined with a lazy-seq producer.
I agree that using doseq instead of dorun results in code that is easier to read. I don't understand though why it is more efficient. They both walk the entire sequence, neither holds onto the head and both return nil. Why is doseq more efficient than dorun? -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
