I found this code snippet [1] written by Rich but presumably using a
very old version of Clojure. The thing that stand out the most is this
at the bottom (the 'correct' fn):
(or (known [word] *nwords*) (known (edits1 word) *nwords*)
(known-edits2 word *nwords*) [word])
It
Some time before the release of Clojure 1.0, there didn't used to be any
such thing as an empty sequence. You either had a (lazy) sequence, or nil.
This made it easy to use sequences as emptiness tests, but had the cost
that a lazy sequence wasn't fully lazy because anything that returned one
I see...
thanks a lot! :-)
Jim
On 25/02/13 12:34, David Powell wrote:
Some time before the release of Clojure 1.0, there didn't used to be
any such thing as an empty sequence. You either had a (lazy)
sequence, or nil. This made it easy to use sequences as emptiness
tests, but had the cost
shameless plug
I talked about the history of lazy-seq and friends at the EuroClojure
2012: http://vimeo.com/channels/357487/45561410
/shameless plug
Kind regards
Meikel
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group, send
