Re: Function syntax
2015-08-13 10:08 GMT+02:00 Eric Le Goff eleg...@gmail.com: I would be curious to know if there are difference (in terms of performance / elegance ) between those 2 ways of expressing functions E.g *(fn [ x] (- x sort last))* versus *#(last (sort %))* Both are supposedly equivalent, but would you recommend one preferred syntax , or this just a matter of personal style ? #() is for very short functions, mostly just one-liners, where the (fn []) would add significant noise. The line is blurry and a matter of taste; upper limit is when you need a nested fn, since #(#()) is not possible. Performance is equivalent, since #() desugars into (fn [..]). 2015-08-13 10:14 GMT+02:00 Erik Assum e...@assum.net: (comp last sort) That's not the same function as #(last (sort %)) The equivalent would be (comp last sort vec) cheers -- 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.
Re: Function syntax
(comp last sort) Erik. -- i farta Den 13. aug. 2015 kl. 10.08 skrev Eric Le Goff eleg...@gmail.com: I would be curious to know if there are difference (in terms of performance / elegance ) between those 2 ways of expressing functions E.g (fn [ x] (- x sort last)) versus #(last (sort %)) Both are supposedly equivalent, but would you recommend one preferred syntax , or this just a matter of personal style ? Thanks -- Eric Le Goff http://fr.linkedin.com/in/elegoff @elegoff -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Function syntax
Hi, That's not the same function as #(last (sort %)) The equivalent would be (comp last sort vec) Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I understand, we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a seq, nothing more. On Thursday, 13 August 2015 14:02:38 UTC+5:30, Herwig Hochleitner wrote: 2015-08-13 10:08 GMT+02:00 Eric Le Goff ele...@gmail.com javascript:: I would be curious to know if there are difference (in terms of performance / elegance ) between those 2 ways of expressing functions E.g *(fn [ x] (- x sort last))* versus *#(last (sort %))* Both are supposedly equivalent, but would you recommend one preferred syntax , or this just a matter of personal style ? #() is for very short functions, mostly just one-liners, where the (fn []) would add significant noise. The line is blurry and a matter of taste; upper limit is when you need a nested fn, since #(#()) is not possible. Performance is equivalent, since #() desugars into (fn [..]). 2015-08-13 10:14 GMT+02:00 Erik Assum er...@assum.net javascript:: (comp last sort) That's not the same function as #(last (sort %)) The equivalent would be (comp last sort vec) cheers -- 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.
Re: Function syntax
Hi, I originally interpreted Erik's reply to mean - Instead of `#(last (sort %))` do `#((comp last sort) %)`. This works without any issue. Herwig's suggestion was about replacing the entire anonymous function with `(comp last sort vec)`. The example you gave `((comp last sort) 3 2 1)`, even if we make it `((comp last sort vec) 3 2 1)`, it will throw an error about `vec` being called with too many parameters. For it to work with variable args, as Herwig said in his reply to me, we need a function that can return a sequence from a varargs. `vector` or `list would work, not `vec`. It should be `((comp last sort list) 3 2 1)`. Please correct me if I am understanding this wrong. On Thursday, 13 August 2015 16:13:24 UTC+5:30, Tassilo Horn wrote: Amith George strid...@gmail.com javascript: writes: That's not the same function as #(last (sort %)) The equivalent would be (comp last sort vec) Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I understand, we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a seq, nothing more. With ((comp last sort) 3 2 1), sort will be called as (apply sort (list 3 2 1)) which essentially is (sort 3 2 1). Hovever, sort is no varargs function but wants a collection. Bye, Tassilo -- 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.
Re: Function syntax
Amith George strider...@gmail.com writes: That's not the same function as #(last (sort %)) The equivalent would be (comp last sort vec) Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I understand, we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a seq, nothing more. With ((comp last sort) 3 2 1), sort will be called as (apply sort (list 3 2 1)) which essentially is (sort 3 2 1). Hovever, sort is no varargs function but wants a collection. Bye, Tassilo -- 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.
Re: Function syntax
Maybe you meant to use `vector` instead of `vec`? `vec` doesn't accept variable args. Hence my original question. On Thursday, 13 August 2015 16:24:43 UTC+5:30, Herwig Hochleitner wrote: 2015-08-13 11:13 GMT+02:00 Amith George strid...@gmail.com javascript: : Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I understand, we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a seq, nothing more. What Tassilo said. Also, it's not nessecary to use `vec`, but you need a function that creates a seqable from varargs, like vec, list, ... . That's what the rest argument syntax does for you: create a collection object from a variable number of arguments. -- 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.
Re: Function syntax
2015-08-13 11:13 GMT+02:00 Amith George strider...@gmail.com: Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I understand, we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a seq, nothing more. What Tassilo said. Also, it's not nessecary to use `vec`, but you need a function that creates a seqable from varargs, like vec, list, ... . That's what the rest argument syntax does for you: create a collection object from a variable number of arguments. -- 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.
Re: Function syntax
Yep, I meant the thing, `vector` is doing. Thanks! 2015-08-13 13:36 GMT+02:00 Amith George strider...@gmail.com: Maybe you meant to use `vector` instead of `vec`? `vec` doesn't accept variable args. Hence my original question. On Thursday, 13 August 2015 16:24:43 UTC+5:30, Herwig Hochleitner wrote: 2015-08-13 11:13 GMT+02:00 Amith George strid...@gmail.com: Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I understand, we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a seq, nothing more. What Tassilo said. Also, it's not nessecary to use `vec`, but you need a function that creates a seqable from varargs, like vec, list, ... . That's what the rest argument syntax does for you: create a collection object from a variable number of arguments. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Function syntax
It is a matter of personal style. Note that there is a max function. On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:53:23 PM UTC+2, Herwig Hochleitner wrote: Yep, I meant the thing, `vector` is doing. Thanks! 2015-08-13 13:36 GMT+02:00 Amith George strid...@gmail.com javascript: : Maybe you meant to use `vector` instead of `vec`? `vec` doesn't accept variable args. Hence my original question. On Thursday, 13 August 2015 16:24:43 UTC+5:30, Herwig Hochleitner wrote: 2015-08-13 11:13 GMT+02:00 Amith George strid...@gmail.com: Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I understand, we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a seq, nothing more. What Tassilo said. Also, it's not nessecary to use `vec`, but you need a function that creates a seqable from varargs, like vec, list, ... . That's what the rest argument syntax does for you: create a collection object from a variable number of arguments. -- 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.
