I guess I don't understand the problem, or what is meant by "different classes". A counter-example would be helpful.
Further transcript using the macro: (def p6 (partial* + 1 2 3)) #'user/p6 user=> (class p6) clojure.core$partial$fn__4194 user=> (def p10 (partial* + 1 2 3 4)) #'user/p10 user=> (class p10) clojure.core$partial$fn__4196 user=> p6 (partial + 1 2 3) user=> p10 (partial + 1 2 3 4) user=> (p6 100) 106 user=> (p10 100) 110 On Friday, April 25, 2014 2:33:50 PM UTC-7, Gary Trakhman wrote: > > That's not going to work, all the return classes of partial are the same > class. > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Greg D <gregoir...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> I don't know if this is considered good Clojure, but you could define a >> print-method within a macro to set up the normal string representation for >> the partial function: >> (defmacro partial* [fname arg0 & args] >> `(let [pf# (partial ~fname ~arg0 ~@args) >> cpf# (class pf#)] >> (defmethod print-method cpf# [o# w#] >> (if (nil? '~args) >> (print-simple (str "(partial " '~fname " " (pr-str ~arg0) ")") >> w#) >> (print-simple (str "(partial " '~fname " " (pr-str ~arg0) ~@(map >> #(str " " (pr-str %)) args) ")") w#))) >> pf#)) >> >> A transcript of some quick examples: >> user=> (def p6 (partial* + 1 2 3)) >> #'user/p6 >> user=> p6 >> (partial + 1 2 3) >> user=> (p6 7) >> 13 >> user=> (def re-find-foo (partial* re-find #"foo")) >> #'user/re-find-foo >> user=> re-find-foo >> (partial re-find #"foo") >> user=> (re-find-foo "abcdefooghi") >> "foo" >> >> >> On Friday, April 25, 2014 9:01:37 AM UTC-7, Matthew DeVore wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> There has been one thing bugging me for a long time that seems worth it >>> to fix, and I was wondering if anyone else has had the same problem. I have >>> enjoyed using Clojure's REPL and embracing a Clojure-style data model for >>> my app, where everything is a glorified map or vector and there are no >>> private fields. I even have a simple dump feature that tells me the entire >>> state of my app <https://github.com/google/hesokuri> that was >>> ridiculously easy to implement, and that takes advantage of the lack of >>> black box data structures. >>> >>> One thing that doesn't really fit in this paradigm is (ironically) >>> anonymous functions with closures. For instance, (partial + 42) returns an >>> anonymous function, and in the REPL or an app dump, it looks hideous: >>> #<core$partial$fn__4228 clojure.core$partial$fn__4228@1ee1dea2> >>> >>> So I've avoided anonymous functions in my app except when they exist >>> transiently, and don't appear in the dump (for instance, in (map #(str % >>> "!") foo)). But sometimes I just can't avoid a long-lived anonymous >>> function practically. The best solution I've come up with is to transform >>> anonymous functions when preparing the application dump. (See the >>> implementation<https://github.com/google/hesokuri/blob/b60cb7222cfdd672e394ef6f22b80c94278fe3a0/src/hesokuri/see.clj#L35>) >>> >>> This makes (partial + 42) look like this: >>> >>> {:fn-class clojure.core$partial$fn__4228, >>> "arg1" 42, >>> "f" {:fn-class clojure.core$_PLUS_}} >>> >>> Which isn't great (I'd like to have filenames and line numbers for each >>> anon fn, and a nicer name for clojure.core/+), but it's a big improvement. >>> The function's JVM class and the closured values are revealed. It would be >>> nice to implement this natively. Having only passing familiarity with the >>> Clojure code base, to solve it I think one could: >>> >>> - give anonymous functions a .getClosure method which creates a view >>> of the closure on-demand >>> - (optional) change their .toString implementation to include this >>> information >>> - add logic to clojure.pprint to use the .getClosure method (I guess >>> "(defmethod clojure.pprint/simple-dispatch clojure.lang.AFunction >>> etc...)" >>> ?) >>> >>> Another feature that would go nicely with this is smarter equality >>> semantics for anonymous functions, so that any two anonymous functions >>> generated at the same point in code with equal closures are equal. This >>> means if I have a function like this: >>> >>> (defn exclaimer [bangs] #(apply str % (repeat bangs "!"))) >>> >>> then the following would be true: (= (exclaimer 10) (exclaimer 10)), >>> making functions behave a lot more like values. I would love to have this >>> particular feature too, although I'm having trouble coming up with a >>> non-contrived example. >>> >>> I'd like to hear some thoughts on this. Thanks! >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Clojure" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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 patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
