I understand your point and there are several competing comparisons here.
Generally only collection functions take the coll first. eduction is
similar to sequence (and into and reduce and transduce) in taking it last
(but differs in taking multiple xforms). The multiple xforms are similar to
->
> On Apr 1, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Alex Miller wrote:
>
> - eduction now takes multiple transformations, not just one, and composes
> them. This is designed for mechanical rewriting (hello tool developers!!) of
> ->> chains like this:
>
> (->> s (interpose 5) (partition-all 2))
>
> to this:
>
>
Alex Miller writes:
Hi Alex,
> Just for fun, I ran the (dorun (sequence (comp (mapcat #(range %))
> (mapcat # (range %))) (range 1000))) and eduction version with the
> CLJ-1515 patch. I saw ~ 20 seconds before and 15 seconds after.
>
> But the new version also makes pure seqs better and I saw t
Just for fun, I ran the (dorun (sequence (comp (mapcat #(range %)) (mapcat
#(range %))) (range 1000))) and eduction version with the CLJ-1515 patch. I
saw ~20 seconds before and 15 seconds after.
But the new version also makes pure seqs better and I saw the full (dorun
...) drop from 6 seconds
It may be worth noting that while the return value of range is wrapped in
lazy-seq and thus isn't itself a clojure.lang.IChunkedSeq, what you get
when you realize it is indeed chunked:
(contains? (ancestors (class (seq (range 128 clojure.lang.IChunkedSeq)
true
It doesn't implement c.l.IReduce
Alex Miller writes:
Hi Alex,
> If you're going to use expanding transformations and not realize all of the
> results then I think sequences are likely a better choice for you.
Ok, I see.
>> However, at least I had expected that in the case where all elements
>> are realized the transducer vers
> On Apr 2, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> So we can agree on eduction not being a Sequable but still being
> sequable. :-)
Agreed. :)
>
>>I think my prime use-case is deeply nested mapcatting where the
>>mapcatted function gets an object and returns a java collection, and
Alex Miller writes:
> Ok. But to me, if I can call `seq` on a thing and iterate it using
> `first` and `rest`, that's a sequable thing to me. :-)
>
> Fair enough. I just meant it no longer implements Seqable. :)
Yes, I got that. But I think that's an implementation detail. I go
with t
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Alex Miller writes:
>
> Ok. But to me, if I can call `seq` on a thing and iterate it using
> `first` and `rest`, that's a sequable thing to me. :-)
>
Fair enough. I just meant it no longer implements Seqable. :)
> > > The general idea
Alex Miller writes:
> > seqable (but it is reducible and iterable). You can use
> > iterator-seq to get a chunked seq over the top if you need one.
>
> Really?
>
> user> *clojure-version*
> {:major 1, :minor 7, :incremental 0, :qualifier "alpha6"}
> user> (seq (eduction (m
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Alex Miller writes:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> > - Eduction is no longer Seqable and thus the return from eduction is not
> > seqable (but it is reducible and iterable). You can use iterator-seq to
> get a
> > chunked seq over the top if you need one.
Alex Miller writes:
Hi Alex,
> - Eduction is no longer Seqable and thus the return from eduction is not
> seqable (but it is reducible and iterable). You can use iterator-seq to get a
> chunked seq over the top if you need one.
Really?
user> *clojure-version*
{:major 1, :minor 7, :incremental
The general idea is that eduction is best when the result will be
completely consumed in a reducible context. Any case of reusing the result
will likely be better served by sequence which can cache and reuse the
answer.
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 3:51:53 AM UTC-5, Tassilo Horn wrote:
>
> vv
First, I love this discussion! Great questions, great thinking.
Up top, I wanted to mention a couple things that have changed in alpha6:
- Eduction is no longer Seqable and thus the return from eduction is not
seqable (but it is reducible and iterable). You can use iterator-seq to
get a chunked
vve...@gmail.com writes:
> Eduction retains the ability to be recomposed with other transducers
> higher in the function chain. The following two are nearly equivalent:
>
> (transduce (take 1e2) + (eduction (filter odd?) (range)))
> (transduce (comp (filter odd?) (take 1e2)) + (range))
>
> This wi
Eduction retains the ability to be recomposed with other transducers higher
in the function chain. The following two are nearly equivalent:
(transduce (take 1e2) + (eduction (filter odd?) (range)))
(transduce (comp (filter odd?) (take 1e2)) + (range))
This will be slower:
(transduce (take 1e2) +
Hi all,
I've switched many nested filter/map/mapcat applications in my code to
using transducers. That brought a moderate speedup in certain cases
and the deeper the nesting has been before, the clearer the transducers
code is in comparison, so yay! :-)
However, I'm still quite unsure about the
17 matches
Mail list logo
