Thanks for debugging me Noel. Since the API I added merely promises some sequence, there's nothing preventing us from having it always return a future lazy stream that can be viewed as a sequence if that ends up being faster. If someday we have such nice lazy streams, then I predict we'll certainly want similar functions and we'll have another request for making the sequence api more like the lazy stream api.
Jay On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Noel Welsh <noelwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I parse your comments like this: >> >> - We can't do these sequence functions fast. >> - When we didn't provide them, people complained that they were missing. >> - When we provide them slowly, people will complain that Racket is slow. >> - It is worse to be slow than featureless. > > I think this is incorrect. I read: > > - When we provide APIs we lock ourselves into them > - The proposed sequence API is slow and can't be sped up without > significant effort (cf worldwide shortage of Matthew-Flatt-hours) > - We shouldn't lock ourselves into a slow API without considering > alternatives (cf performance of stream/lazy list abstraction) > > N. > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://teammccarthy.org/jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
