> Making assumptions between the order of realization of seq elements and calls to the reducing functions seems crazy to me, really.
May be, but it's not as much about the order as about the laziness. New reduce is less lazy than previous, and maybe unnecessarily so. If you think of a collection, you don't care, since is going to be completely reduced anyway, but if your seq is a lazy-seq, you want as much laziness as you can have. My 1E-3M$ -- 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
