Archive search nth seq hickey:
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/ffa3f56c3bb32bc3/773b23a34e88acab?lnk=gstq=nth+seq+hickey#773b23a34e88acab
Stu
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM, jweiss jeffrey.m.we...@gmail.com wrote:
That's totally different than nth for a set being
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Stuart Halloway
stuart.hallo...@gmail.com wrote:
Archive search nth seq hickey:
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/ffa3f56c3bb32bc3/773b23a34e88acab?lnk=gstq=nth+seq+hickey#773b23a34e88acab
Interesting. But that was years ago, Hickey no
On Dec 6, 8:36 am, Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, the comment (not made by Hickey) that map order may be
unstable is more than a little puzzling in light of the fact that the
maps in question are immutable. :)
In general, Rich has been careful not to promise things that
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Stuart Sierra
the.stuart.sie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:36 am, Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, the comment (not made by Hickey) that map order may be
unstable is more than a little puzzling in light of the fact that the
maps in question
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:30:10 -0500
Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Stuart Sierra
the.stuart.sie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:36 am, Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, the comment (not made by Hickey) that map order may be
unstable is
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mike Meyer
mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:30:10 -0500
Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Stuart Sierra
the.stuart.sie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:36 am, Ken Wesson
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 17:07:15 -0500
Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Mike Meyer
mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:30:10 -0500
Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Stuart Sierra
On Dec 6, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
Perhaps. But under those circumstances seq itself has the same problem
you're using to excuse not supporting nth, yet seq is supported. And
so is (nth (seq x)) on these things; if the implementation changed its
innards while you were walking the
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Michael Gardner gardne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
Perhaps. But under those circumstances seq itself has the same problem
you're using to excuse not supporting nth, yet seq is supported. And
so is (nth (seq x)) on these
sorry to jump in this weird conversation, but it seems to me that you are on
parallel discussion without acknowleding it.
To me, the only thing which makes sense is that saying that seq promises no
deterministic ordering on sets and maps is not about calling seq on the same
java instance of a set
On Dec 6, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
Who was relying on the order? If you merely relied on seeing 5 or 6,
or on not seeing 3 or 4 twice, you were screwed.
Ah, I misunderstood what you wrote. Obviously (seq) should hand you each item
in the collection exactly once, but that's at a
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Michael Gardner gardne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
Who was relying on the order? If you merely relied on seeing 5 or 6,
or on not seeing 3 or 4 twice, you were screwed.
Ah, I misunderstood what you wrote. Obviously (seq)
On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
I'll try this one more time. You suggested the innards, and with them
the seq order of the elements, might get rearranged.
I suggested no such thing; perhaps you are confusing me with Mike Meyer? I
referred more generally to the possibility of two
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Michael Gardner gardne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
I'll try this one more time. You suggested the innards, and with them
the seq order of the elements, might get rearranged.
I suggested no such thing; perhaps you are
Hello all
I have following question to Rich and other core developers of Clojure -
why parameters destructuring requires presence of 'nth' implementation for
destructuring of sequences?
The [[x more]] idiom is very popular and could make code more concise, but
it doesn't work for sets and some
Re
jweiss at Sun, 5 Dec 2010 10:29:41 -0800 (PST) wrote:
j I'm no expert on this, but i'll take a crack at it.
j I think it's because sets don't (necessarily) impose any order, so
j there's no concept of first or nth. So destructuring would
j essentially be assigning a random item to x, or
On Dec 5, 2:10 pm, Alex Ott alex...@gmail.com wrote:
Re
jweiss at Sun, 5 Dec 2010 10:29:41 -0800 (PST) wrote:
j I'm no expert on this, but i'll take a crack at it.
j I think it's because sets don't (necessarily) impose any order, so
j there's no concept of first or nth. So
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM, jweiss jeffrey.m.we...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm no expert on this, but i'll take a crack at it.
I think it's because sets don't (necessarily) impose any order, so
there's no concept of first or nth. So destructuring would
essentially be assigning a random item to
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM, jweiss jeffrey.m.we...@gmail.com wrote:
That's totally different than nth for a set being undefined. It's undefined
on purpose.
Now, if you are using a sorted-set, then you have a point there, I
would expect that nth means something then. But yeah, clojure
+1 to what Ken said
Sunil
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM, jweiss jeffrey.m.we...@gmail.com wrote:
That's totally different than nth for a set being undefined. It's
undefined
on purpose.
Now, if you are using a
If sets don't have a set ordering, then why should seq on a set always
return the same order for the same set?
If seq doesn't always return the a seq with the same order, then (nth
set 5) might be different than a future call to (nth set 5),
because the underlying sequence returned by the set
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote:
If sets don't have a set ordering, then why should seq on a set always
return the same order for the same set?
If seq doesn't always return the a seq with the same order, then (nth
set 5) might be different than a future call
22 matches
Mail list logo
