Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use lazy pmap for lazy-depth #102

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 31, 2017
Merged

Use lazy pmap for lazy-depth #102

merged 1 commit into from Aug 31, 2017

Conversation

totakke
Copy link
Member

@totakke totakke commented Aug 31, 2017

com.climate.claypoole/pmap consumes extra elements, so that it is inappropriate for lazy sequence. Instead, cljam.algo.depth/lazy-depth uses com.climate.claypoole.lazy/pmap by this change.

lazy/pmap is inferior in speed to cp/pmap, but current cljam provides non-lazy depth function for performance. I think lazy/pmap is useful to handle returned lazy sequence of lazy-depth.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 31, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #102 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #102   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.94%   84.94%           
=======================================
  Files          60       60           
  Lines        3966     3966           
  Branches      400      400           
=======================================
  Hits         3369     3369           
  Misses        197      197           
  Partials      400      400
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/cljam/algo/depth.clj 73.8% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7df1f95...37d93af. Read the comment docs.

@alumi alumi merged commit 579df0d into master Aug 31, 2017
@alumi alumi deleted the fix/lazy-depth-pmap branch August 31, 2017 09:11
@alumi
Copy link
Member

alumi commented Aug 31, 2017

You're absolutely right! Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants