ok, so ignore the rambling about tasks since it never seems to produce one, even with a task as input.
On Sunday, 29 December 2013 13:58:34 UTC-3, andrew cooke wrote: > > From the comment at https://gist.github.com/nalimilan/8132114 > (am I reading it wrong, does it just mean map with local anon functions?) > > Is it the overhead of creating an intermediate Task? Are there any plans > to merge nested tasks as an optimisation (I have no idea if something like > that is even possible)? Or to replace the "collect(map(...))" idiom with > something faster? > > Thanks, > Andrew >
