Right. I thought that transient performing deep 'transientivity'.
Here is a fixed version. It takes a regular coll converts whatever it
can to transient and update the stuff.
The problem is that doing persistent!(assoc!(transient m)) on each
level probably misses the whole point of performance.
So while it work, it probably slower than the regular update-in.
I need a better solution.
(defn update-in!!
"modified version of core/update-in that works on, and return
transiants"
([m [k & ks] f & args]
(if ks
(persistent!(assoc! (transient m) k (apply update-in!! (get m k)
ks f args)))
(persistent!(assoc! (transient m) k (apply f (get m k) args))))))
On Jan 17, 3:57 pm, Chouser <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Gabi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> user=> (persistent!(update-in!(transient v) [0] reverse))
>
> > Forgot to mention that v in the example is defined to [[1 2] [3 4]]
>
> So you've got a transient vector of persistent vectors of
> numbers. The problem is your update-in! then calls assoc! on
> each level, but of course assoc! on the inner persistent vector
> fails.
>
> You either need to make the inner vectors transient (and then
> call persist! on them when you're done) or use assoc! only at the
> outer level.
>
> --Chouserhttp://joyofclojure.com/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
