.
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:22:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Compall wrote:
On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 10:37 -0700, Balint Erdi wrote:
(let [neighbors (persistent!
(reduce
(fn [c u] (if (explored u) c (conj! c u
PM UTC+1, Balint Erdi wrote:
Yes, that's definitely a good idea. I tried a few other things (including
that, I think) after I posted that but nothing really worked and it turned
out that the tail-recursive version even had a bug.
I couldn't find a way to really keep the amount of copying
Hey,
I got an assignment to implement an algorithm to calculate strongly
connected components in a graph (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosaraju's_algorithm). The graph is rather
big, it has ~900.000 vertices.
In its first pass, it needs to do a depth-first search on the graph and
itself fails then the transaction rolls back like always.
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:32:14 AM UTC-5, Balint Erdi wrote:
Hey,
So yesterday we discussed concurrency at our meetup (
http://www.meetup.com/Budapest-Clojure-User-Group/) and a question
occurred to me.
Suppose we have
Hey,
So yesterday we discussed concurrency at our meetup
(http://www.meetup.com/Budapest-Clojure-User-Group/) and a question occurred to
me.
Suppose we have a classic web application. (I'm not currently building such a
web app in Clojure, so that's a theoretical question).
When the user
Hey,
Delighted to announce that the Budapest Clojure Group has just launched:
http://www.meetup.com/Budapest-Clojure-User-Group/
The official language is English so consider joining/attending if you're
from a relatively close city but don't speak Hungarian (Bratislava Vienna
come to mind).
Great, just sent the pull request.
On Friday, January 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Michael Klishin wrote:
2013/1/11 Balint Erdi balint.e...@gmail.com (mailto:balint.e...@gmail.com)
Delighted to announce that the Budapest Clojure Group has just launched:
http://www.meetup.com/Budapest-Clojure
Hey,
Reducers is fascinating and quite complex at the same time. I feel like
best practices around it has not quite solidified yet.
Here is how I made your example work:
(ns group-by-reducers.core
(:require [clojure.core.reducers :as r :only [fold reduce map]])
(:require [criterium.core
BTW I understood the most about reducers (still not quite there yet, though
:) ) from Rich Hickey's talk at EuroClojure:
https://vimeo.com/45561411
On Friday, December 7, 2012 10:21:59 AM UTC+1, Balint Erdi wrote:
Hey,
Reducers is fascinating and quite complex at the same time. I feel like
: 728.19 msecs
Elapsed time: 475.543 msecs
Run 3
Elapsed time: 657.255 msecs
Elapsed time: 725.995 msecs
Elapsed time: 494.038 msecs
Run 4
Elapsed time: 647.53 msecs
Elapsed time: 731.085 msecs
Elapsed time: 538.649 msecs
hth,
Christophe
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Balint Erdi
As Sean suggested you should use doseq instead of for and map to force
side-effects:
http://clojuredocs.org/clojure_core/clojure.core/doseq
Since doseq uses the exact same syntax as for, you should just write doseq
in its place. map should be converted to doseq syntax, too.
Balint
On Monday,
Hey,
I've grown extremely enthusiastic about Clojure (and still growing more and
more :) ) and would like to spread the love around here in Budapest,
Hungary.
This is to estimate how many people are interested in attending a monthly
meetup where we'd have presentations, code dojos, etc, so
If you share your pc with your brother then using the classic one
username/password per site you'd have to log out and back in on each site
you want to use (or use another browser/incognito window, etc.)
With Persona you only have to do this once.
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:05:20 PM UTC+1,
Hey,
When browsing through clojure.core I noticed something peculiar in the
implementation of comp, juxt and partial.
All three share the same implementation pattern. They define separate methods
for the arity of 0,1,2,3 and any.
For example in juxt:
(defn juxt
(…)
([f g]
(fn
Makes sense but why don't we have it in all possible places then?
Thank you.
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:55:42 PM UTC+2, Herwig Hochleitner wrote:
That is because dispatch on argument count is fast, while apply is slow.
Especially so since it might have to create an intermediate seq.
It's
guess is that it's useful in the core functions which are more
heavily used. Otherwise you're getting into premature optimization if
you use it in any of your own functions without profiling it first.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Balint Erdi balin...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Makes
I'd like to read that thread, can you provide a url?
Thank you,
Balint
On Saturday, August 25, 2012 2:41:40 AM UTC+2, Bost wrote:
See the thread The Value of Values started by Conrad Barski
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post
This is the classic Subset sum problem
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset_sum_problem) and is an NP one.
I've implemented the pseudo-polynomial dynamic programming solution found
on the above Wikipedia page:
https://gist.github.com/3359504
It returns the indexes of the elements that give the
18 matches
Mail list logo
