This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2019-11-15
Channels
- # announcements (1)
- # aws (79)
- # babashka (47)
- # beginners (82)
- # calva (65)
- # cider (27)
- # cljdoc (18)
- # cljs-dev (29)
- # clojure (189)
- # clojure-dev (5)
- # clojure-europe (3)
- # clojure-italy (1)
- # clojure-madison (6)
- # clojure-nl (4)
- # clojure-spec (10)
- # clojure-uk (41)
- # clojured (3)
- # clojurescript (5)
- # clojurex (17)
- # cursive (30)
- # data-science (7)
- # datomic (17)
- # emacs (3)
- # events (6)
- # fulcro (2)
- # funcool (9)
- # graalvm (29)
- # jobs-discuss (3)
- # joker (3)
- # kaocha (6)
- # malli (5)
- # music (6)
- # off-topic (21)
- # reagent (3)
- # reitit (4)
- # rewrite-clj (8)
- # shadow-cljs (49)
- # spacemacs (7)
- # sql (23)
- # tools-deps (15)
- # vim (43)
- # xtdb (19)
So, I think I've finally figured out how to change core.rrb-vector, or another similar library, to guarantee its O(log N) performance of operations like subvec and concatenate, so happy about that.
👍 4
If conj/peek/pop all still gave O(log_{32} N) guaranteed run time for accessing the end of the vector, any good suggestions for what the corresponding operations on the beginning of the vector ought to be called?
Yeah, looking at that right now. peek -> first, of course, and pop -> rest makes sense. conj -> conjl ("conj left") is what finger-tree uses