Sunil, is there any particular reason why you are looking for when
results of operations have identical? return true, rather than merely
= return true?
If it is for some reduction in allocating new memory when it is not
necessary, then I can understand your motivation, although it really
Hello everybody,
I think the documentation of the clojure.set/difference should change to
reflect the fact that only the first argument needs to be a set and the rest
of the arguments can be any collection.
I am reporting this from Clojure 1.2
Sunil.
--
You received this message because you
Andy,
It was just for education like you said .. It was more of waw .. it is not
creating another map if the value has not changed.. thing..
Sunil
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Andy Fingerhut andy.finger...@gmail.comwrote:
Sunil, is there any particular reason why you are looking for when
Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com writes:
Retries? We were discussing an atom here, not a ref. A dosync
transaction may be retried. The obvious implementation for swap! would
be (locking inner_value (set! inner_value.contents (apply fun
inner_value.contents))) (warning: pseudocode, I assume this
2010/12/1 Sunil S Nandihalli sunil.nandiha...@gmail.com
Andy,
It was just for education like you said .. It was more of waw .. it is not
creating another map if the value has not changed.. thing..
After all, it's just a special case of structural sharing ... when you share
exactly the same
yea true ... :)
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/12/1 Sunil S Nandihalli sunil.nandiha...@gmail.com
Andy,
It was just for education like you said .. It was more of waw .. it is not
creating another map if the value has not changed.. thing..
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Alex Osborne a...@meshy.org wrote:
Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com writes:
Retries? We were discussing an atom here, not a ref. A dosync
transaction may be retried. The obvious implementation for swap! would
be (locking inner_value (set! inner_value.contents
Hi All,
In the course of putting together my latest piece of work I decided to
really embrace TDD. This is run of the mill for me in Java:
- create some object that models your flow
- create some object which contains your storage logic
- create tests
- dependency inject the correct storage
Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com writes:
It looks an awful lot like swap! itself is implemented with a polling
sleeplock instead of using the language's own lock. :)
I suppose it's similar to a spinlock simply because it keeps retrying,
like a spinlock keeps retrying to acquire. Very different
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Alex Osborne a...@meshy.org wrote:
I expect the compare it does uses .equals rather than ==?
Not even that, it's a CPU instruction so it'll be identical?.
The identical? predicate and the Java == operator do the same thing.
Also, what's a CPU instruction?
Hi,
2010/12/1 Michael Ossareh ossa...@gmail.com
Hi All,
In the course of putting together my latest piece of work I decided to
really embrace TDD. This is run of the mill for me in Java:
- create some object that models your flow
- create some object which contains your storage logic
-
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
If so, then it may be sufficient to leverage the possibility, in your
testing framework (clojure.test ? anything else ...) to redefine the
functions of the backend before the tests run. I'm pretty sure there are
2010/12/1 Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com
wrote:
If so, then it may be sufficient to leverage the possibility, in your
testing framework (clojure.test ? anything else ...) to redefine the
functions of the backend before
Hi all,
I'm not too happy with how resultset-seq down-cases column names and
turns them into keywords, as I would prefer to work with string keys
in some cases. I came up with the following change to give the caller
a choice to remap column keys in any way. This leaves resultset-seq's
behavior
I thought his blog had some interesting points. I enjoyed reading it. Do I
wish Mathematica was more affordable and/or open source? Yes. So what.
That doesn't make Wolfram a lunatic or a fraud.
Do you recall me saying that?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
He may have some interesting points but...
Anyone who makes grandiose claims and can't bother to give credit to
the people who have helped them along the way deserves to be ignored.
On Nov 27, 11:36 pm, Duane Searsmith dsearsm...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought his blog had some interesting points.
The documentation is correct. It tells what the function promises to callers,
not how it does it.
Rely on implementation details at you peril. :-)
Stu
Hello everybody,
I think the documentation of the clojure.set/difference should change to
reflect the fact that only the first argument
Using keywords in the resultset map is a feature. It is very common
to write something like this;
(map :your-column results)
This takes advantage of the fact that keywords implement IFn. To the
best of my knowledge SQL isn't case sensitive, downcasing the column
names makes sense too, since it
+1
On Dec 1, 8:01 pm, Ryan Twitchell metatheo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm not too happy with how resultset-seq down-cases column names and
turns them into keywords, as I would prefer to work with string keys
in some cases. I came up with the following change to give the caller
a choice
Yup. Count me in as another Clojurian thirsty for videos from the
conference.
I'm definitely willing to fork over a couple of bucks for the pleasure
as well.
- Farley
On Nov 30, 10:22 pm, Brent Millare brent.mill...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, I surprised a video from the conference hasn't been
Hi Mike,
TDD as if you meant it -
http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-software-craftsmanship-conference/
What you want is mocking and stubbing (these are different things!).
Sean,
I entirely agree that the use of keywords as map keys is a feature of
clojure (and a great one, at that), and that converting result set
column names to keywords is a feature of resultset-seq. A greater
feature of clojure is its extensibility. What I am after is a
generalization of the
Note, though, that he did not use the words unit testing, you did :)
And mocking and stubbing are techniques that can be done at different scales
...
2010/12/1 Alyssa Kwan alyssa.c.k...@gmail.com
Hi Mike,
TDD as if you meant it -
On 1 December 2010 02:01, Chris Riddoch riddo...@gmail.com wrote:
Which reminds me, I'd really love to see a good comparison of freely
available benchmarking tools for Clojure. From past discussions on
the list, I gather that benchmarking in the JVM is a rather tricky
thing in general, but
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
I've come to dislike the bandying about of premature optimization.
Premature optimization is wasting time optimizing when you don't understand
the problem space. That is not the case here. It's just about convenience.
I
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/12/1 Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com
wrote:
If so, then it may be sufficient to leverage the possibility, in your
testing framework
2010/12/1 Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com
wrote:
2010/12/1 Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com
wrote:
If so, then it may be sufficient to leverage the
On Dec 1, 3:33 pm, Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/12/1 Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com
wrote:
If so, then it may be sufficient to
I'd be highly dubious of this even if it was free, performance-wise.
and are not clearly defined on strings and in general this kind of
thing seems like an inroad for the kind of baffling implicit
conversion-type behaviours you can see in PHP or JavaScript. Functions
that do something like those
My friend's playing with Haskell, and asked me how I'd write a function to
take a list and return a list of the sums like so:
(f [1 2 4 8])
= [1 3 7 15]
So I told him about Haskell's scanl function.
Is scanl available in Haskell?
These were my two versions of it and some simple benchmarks:
That sounds like 'reductions':
(reductions + [1 2 4 8])
== (1 3 7 15)
Chris
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Alex Baranosky
alexander.barano...@gmail.com wrote:
My friend's playing with Haskell, and asked me how I'd write a function to
take a list and return a list of the sums like so:
(f [1
Actually, it was one of the features I liked about Arc, which is built
on scheme.
That being said Arc doesn't have as many data type's or structures,
quite likely making it better suited for building generic functions,
most of which can be applied
across the majority of data types/structure's.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Chris Maier
christopher.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like 'reductions':
(reductions + [1 2 4 8])
== (1 3 7 15)
On top of that, both the OP's algorithms are quadratic.
(defn scanl2 [f seed coll]
(loop [ttl seed [fst rst] coll acc []]
(let [ttl (f
Thanks Stu ..
But I think it may be reasonable to say that the rest of the arguments can
be any collection and not just Set .. But I guess you have your reasons .. I
will assume that every argument is just a set and not anything else.
Sunil.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Stuart Halloway
34 matches
Mail list logo
