On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ben Wolfson <wolf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Stephen Compall > <stephen.comp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Of course take-while might cause more of a lazy seq to be realized > than is present in its output because of seq chunking. But I'd *hope* > that it wouldn't exacerbate that by reserving the right to work like, > say, this, where n is the largest number of elements of a seq calling > first might compute: > > 1. Realize the first 1000n elements of a seq, retaining them in memory. > 2. Call pred on those elements in reverse order. > 3. If pred was true for all of them, realize the next 1000n elements, > etc., otherwise return a lazy seq of the first stretch of elements for > which pred returned true. > > That admittedly would be insane, but if pred is free of side-effects > (and computing the elements of the collection is also free of > side-effects) it would be correct.
It wouldn't even be all that insane if you had 1000 otherwise idle cores sitting around and an expensive enough predicate. -- 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
