But note that a namespace's definition may be spread among several source
files, though.
So you're just able to localize the main file of the namespace, which
contains the (ns) directive, but you can't localize the loaded files
participating to the namespace, those you contain (in-ns) directives.
2010/9/30 Phil Hagelberg p...@hagelb.org
The following form fails in Clojure 1.0, but was fixed in 1.1:
(eval '(do (require 'clojure.inspector) clojure.inspector/inspect))
It used to fail because it tried to compile the whole quoted form, but
it couldn't compile the inspect reference
I believe the performance problems boil down to the abysmal
performance of bit-shift-right and bit-and in Clojure 1.3 alpha 1.
I'll post this in a separate thread to make sure it gets read.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to
bitwise-and and bitwise-shift-right and bitwise-shift-left run more
than 50 times slower in clojure 1.3 alpha 1 versus clojure 1.2. Could
the 1.3 gurus please investigate this?
Try something like this to see the difference:
(time (doseq [x (range 10)] (bit-shift-left x 1)))
This points to
With all these reports of performance degradation, it sounds like it
would be really useful to have a performance regression suite.
-Per
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Mark Engelberg
mark.engelb...@gmail.com wrote:
bitwise-and and bitwise-shift-right and bitwise-shift-left run more
than 50
I have a need to convert maps in the following ways:
Given a map with keyword keys, I need a map with uppercase string keys
- and vice versa.
{ :stuff 42 :like 13 :this 7 } = { STUFF 42 LIKE 13 THIS 7 }
I've come up with various functions to do this but so far they all
feel a bit clunky.
Any
I have a need to convert maps in the following ways:
Given a map with keyword keys, I need a map with uppercase string keys
- and vice versa.
{ :stuff 42 :like 13 :this 7 } = { STUFF 42 LIKE 13 THIS 7 }
What about this -
(into {} (for [[k v] { :stuff 42 :like 13 :this 7 }]
On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
I have a need to convert maps in the following ways:
Given a map with keyword keys, I need a map with uppercase string keys
- and vice versa.
{ :stuff 42 :like 13 :this 7 } = { STUFF 42 LIKE 13 THIS 7 }
What about this -
(into
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Baishampayan Ghose b.gh...@gmail.com wrote:
(into {} (for [[k v] { :stuff 42 :like 13 :this 7 }]
[(.toUpperCase (name k)) v]))
(defn- to-struct [r] (into {} (for [[k v] r] [(.toUpperCase (name k)) v]))
That is certainly nicer than most of my
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Baishampayan Ghose b.gh...@gmail.com
wrote:
(into {} (for [[k v] { :stuff 42 :like 13 :this 7 }]
[(.toUpperCase (name k)) v]))
(defn- to-struct [r] (into {} (for [[k v] r] [(.toUpperCase (name k)) v]))
That is certainly nicer than most of my
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Baishampayan Ghose b.gh...@gmail.com wrote:
This also helps in avoiding the contrib dependency.
Good point. Thanx BG.
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://getrailo.com/
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
If you're
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Baishampayan Ghose b.gh...@gmail.com wrote:
clojure.contrib.string/upper-case is a trivial wrapper over
.toUpperCase. In my humble opinion it's perfectly OK to use such
static Java methods directly instead of writing trivial wrappers
around them.
Except that
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer m...@kotka.de wrote:
(defn to-string-keys
[m]
(zipmap (map (comp clojure.string/upper-case name) (keys m)) (vals
m)))
That's very similar to one of my attempts and... I don't know... I
just don't like it as much. Splitting the map into two
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Mark Engelberg
mark.engelb...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that if you use .toUpperCase, you have to remember to type hint
the input. Any time you call a Java method without type hinting, you
take a significant performance hit. The wrapper function takes care
of
On Sep 30, 2010, at 3:40 AM, Sean Corfield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Mark Engelberg
mark.engelb...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that if you use .toUpperCase, you have to remember to type hint
the input. Any time you call a Java method without type hinting, you
take a significant
Some more data points on 1.3 alpha 1 performance:
bit operations appear to be much faster on hinted args. For example,
(defn unhinted-shift [n] (bit-shift-left n 1))
(defn ^:static hinted-shift [^long n] (bit-shift-left n 1))
user= (time (doseq [x (range 10)] (unhinted-shift x)))
Did some more testing, and I'm now convinced that the slow performance
of the bitwise operators in clojure 1.3 alpha 1 is due to the inline
declaration in the definition of the bitwise ops. If you remove the
inline declaration, performance is as it should be. So something
about the way inline
Hi,
On 30 Sep., 09:37, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote:
That's very similar to one of my attempts and... I don't know... I
just don't like it as much. Splitting the map into two streams and
zipping them back together just doesn't feel as 'nice' and making one
pass over the
As a side note, I notice that in clojure 1.3, bit-shift-left now
provides wraparound logic with no warning if the first input is a long
(as opposed to a bigint).
Wouldn't it be more consistent if bit-shift-left provided an overflow
error for long inputs that shift so much they overflow? Should
Hi,
Newbie here with a simple question: what is the preferred way of
mapping a function to a seq? Use an anonymous function or use a
partial?
Consider this:
user= (map (fn [n] (+ 2 n)) [1 2 3 4 5])
(3 4 5 6 7)
user= (map (partial + 2) [1 2 3 4 5])
(3 4 5 6 7)
user=
I know that the answer is
I ask myself that from time to time. I tend to use (partial + 2)
because I think its easier to read.
The (+ 2) bit is intressting. That would be automatic currying, you
get that in other languages. It is not possible in Clojure becaus
there is no limit to how many args a clojure function can
#(s/upper-case (name %))
Good and clear in this case.
#(- % name s/upper-case)
I think that would be nice if there were three functions.
(comp s/upper-case name)
I think its hard to read for beginners, because you have to read it
backwards and no parens to indicate but you could say that the
So if we fix that all the other peoples problems fix themselfs :)
Nice work Mark.
On Sep 30, 10:06 am, Mark Engelberg mark.engelb...@gmail.com wrote:
Did some more testing, and I'm now convinced that the slow performance
of the bitwise operators in clojure 1.3 alpha 1 is due to the inline
Hi,
On 30 Sep., 09:48, Ulises ulises.cerv...@gmail.com wrote:
user= (map (fn [n] (+ 2 n)) [1 2 3 4 5])
(3 4 5 6 7)
user= (map (partial + 2) [1 2 3 4 5])
(3 4 5 6 7)
user=
You can also consider the following: (map #(+ % 2) [1 2 3 4]), which
is also very clear. I personally almost never use
That's really is a cool idea of feature.
I intend to add such a feature as well in ccw, will certainly be a very
useful command in the default mode !
(and also in the REPL ? hmmm )
2010/9/30 blais bl...@furius.ca
It's too small to be an Emacs package, but I've forked it into its own
file
You can also consider the following: (map #(+ % 2) [1 2 3 4]), which
I did consider #(...) but didn't include it in the example as I tend
to prefer (fn [..] ...). For some reason my brain parses (fn...) much
better than #() (it looks more explicit).
If partial is a special case of #(..) could
Think about it for a moment. What should ((+ 2) 1) return? A
function with the next elment add on to it? So it would return a
function that adds 3 to its args or the result? How can you know what
the caller wants?
That's a very good point which I hadn't considered.
Perhaps the evaluation
Hi,
On 30 Sep., 12:10, Ulises ulises.cerv...@gmail.com wrote:
My question stemmed from the fact that sometimes I find myself mapping
functions which are just partial applications of the same function and
perhaps having a bunch of partials lying around would make my code
read better.
Well.
Hello,
Can somebody explains me why the instance? function accepts one
argument whereas the documentation states Usage: (instance? c x)
For instance:
user= *clojure-version*
{:interim true, :major 1, :minor 2, :incremental 0, :qualifier
master}
user= (instance? Integer)
false
Thanks in
The two styles are ok.
Matter of taste.
(partial ...) have probably a slight cost I wouldn't worry about
except if profiler tells me to worry.
The (partial...) style is called point-less, because you directly
manipulate the arrows and not the points.
It is the same kind of question as : should
The two styles are ok.
Matter of taste.
(partial ...) have probably a slight cost I wouldn't worry about
except if profiler tells me to worry.
Excellent.
If you want to have something looking like (+ 2) with multiple args
possible, I would advocate the best way might be to
add a reader
On 30 Sep 2010, at 11.36 am, K. wrote:
Can somebody explains me why the instance? function accepts one
argument whereas the documentation states Usage: (instance? c x)
What an interesting question. If you try and emulate the behaviour yourself by
creating a separate fn with a different name,
Hello
Stefan Hübner at Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:38:45 +0200 wrote:
SH (sorry to use this channel)
SH I just wanted to notice the maintainers of Planet Clojure, that it's RSS
SH feed is outdated. The web site shows more recent articles than the feed
SH does.
Yes, we know - there is a problem
I have a keyboard paste problem, but I think it has more general
interest. When the user types Control V in a JTextPane, data from
the clipboard will be pasted into the text. I want to act on that
pasted text. I can easily capture the keystroke. The problem is
that my capture takes place
You have probably mistaken this clojure group for another ...
2010/9/30 WoodHacker ramsa...@comcast.net
I have a keyboard paste problem, but I think it has more general
interest. When the user types Control V in a JTextPane, data from
the clipboard will be pasted into the text. I want to
Thanks chaps, that's what I was looking for.
Luckily I came across an easier solution to the underlying problem
(i.e. using session and reload middleware in ring):
http://groups.google.com/group/ring-clojure/browse_thread/thread/a0dffa86be0896ff#
basically, using defonce allows me to create
I wrote a blog recently on a helper function I use for stuff like this
called mapmap:
http://tech.puredanger.com/2010/09/24/meet-my-little-friend-mapmap/
mapmap takes a function to generate keys and a function to generate
values, applies them to a sequence, and zipmaps their results. Using
a map
Has anyone else noticed this? In Emacs clojure-mode, indentation and
syntax coloring can get out of whack after a string that contains an
open parenthesis.
In the example below, (+ 1 2) is indented incorrectly.
(defn f [x]
Blah blah blah.
(parenthetical expression
(+ 1 2))
--
You
Hi,
c.c.json/json-str seems to handle maps with keys containing quotes
incorrectly:
(println (json-str {\ 1}))
{:1}
...while I (and my parsers) would expect {\:1}.
I'd much rather report this on Assembla than here, but I seem to be
needing a CA to post a ticket there, and I'm in way too big
I forgot to add that this happens both with contrib 1.2.0 and 1.3-
alpha1.
Daniel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be
There it is :
http://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/Compiler.java#L5984
The magic only happen for dos which are top level forms
2010/9/30 Phil Hagelberg p...@hagelb.org
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com
wrote:
The following
On 30 Wrz, 20:46, Steve Purcell st...@sanityinc.com wrote:
You can file the bug as a support ticket without a CA here:
http://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/support/tickets
Thanks, I've reported it as a contrib support ticket. I wasn't aware
of this functionality.
Daniel
--
You received
Just in case anyone comes across this, I did get around it. In fig. 2 I was
trying to run (use-fixtures) twice. One with a :once, and one with :each. I
just commented out the :once call and executed manually.
*(use-fixtures :once login-test/test-fixture-shell )*
*(use-fixtures :each
I was discussing this on the clojure channel, and it seems as though
avoiding explicit recursion is the idiomatic thing to do. Is there a
better way to define a function that loops over an arbitrary number of
sequences in a nested fashion, similar to the 'for' macro, without
relying on recursion?
Mark Engelberg mark.engelb...@gmail.com writes:
str uses a string builder behind the scenes, so it's efficient this
way.
If the `str' implementation didn't take the input sequence to be lazy,
it could figure out how long the resulting string needed to be, and
construct the StringBuilder using
That's perfect, thanks!
On Sep 30, 4:55 pm, Mark Engelberg mark.engelb...@gmail.com wrote:
clojure.contrib.cartesian-product does what your nested function does,
but more efficiently, using iteration rather than recursion.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
So I noticed some curious behaviour:
(defmacro foo [body] {:env env :form form :body body})
= #'user/foo
(#'user/foo :body)
= java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Wrong number of args (1)
passed to: user$foo (NO_SOURCE_FILE:0)
(#'user/foo :form :env :body)
= {:env :env,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Timothy Washington twash...@gmail.com wrote:
Just in case anyone comes across this, I did get around it. In fig. 2 I was
trying to run (use-fixtures) twice. One with a :once, and one with :each.
I just tried that and it worked fine for me:
(ns utest)
(use
As with most microbenchmarks you're measuring the test more than the
subject. In the above case the seq generation dominates.
Compare the following on my machine:
user= (time (doseq [x (range 10)] (bit-shift-left x 1)))
Elapsed time: 3531.198 msecs
nil
user= (time (dotimes [x 10]
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:13 PM, ataggart alex.tagg...@gmail.com wrote:
As with most microbenchmarks you're measuring the test more than the
subject. In the above case the seq generation dominates.
Compare the following on my machine:
user= (time (doseq [x (range 10)] (bit-shift-left x
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:52 AM, David Sletten da...@bosatsu.net wrote:
Huh?! How many solutions do you want? You're starting to annoy me Sean.
Sorry dude. I think it's really insightful to see lots of different
solutions to small point problems like this when you're learning a
language -
51 matches
Mail list logo
