What's the meaning of the following code:
(([move #(turn % -1) #(turn % 1)] (wrand [(if (:ant @ahead) 0
(ranks ahead)) (ranks ahead-left) (ranks ahead-right)]))
loc)))
in https://www.refheap.com/paste/3099 from line 192 to 195?
Sorry to bother
Hi Yu,
This is a pretty dense (and IMHO non-idiomatic) piece of Clojure code.
Without reading the paste you provided, I can at least tell you what
appears to be happening here, given Clojure's evaluation semantics:
1. The [move ...] expression creates a vector of three functions.
2. The [(if
Hi Gary,
Your examination makes perfect sense in the context.
Thanks for your help!
Yu
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Gary Johnson gwjoh...@uvm.edu wrote:
Hi Yu,
This is a pretty dense (and IMHO non-idiomatic) piece of Clojure code.
Without reading the paste you provided, I can at
That's great. I've also noticed the sample still uses defstruct which is
made obsolete by defrecord.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Baishampayan Ghose b.gh...@gmail.comwrote:
Can you elaborate some suggestions?
I have updated the Ants sim code to use the idiomatic JVM inter-op
constructs
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Yann Schwartz abolibibe...@gmail.com wrote:
That's great. I've also noticed the sample still uses defstruct which is
made obsolete by defrecord.
While I agree that one could use a record in place of a struct, I
don't think structs are obsolete, at least not
Hi,
Am Dienstag, 12. Juni 2012 10:24:31 UTC+2 schrieb Baishampayan Ghose:
While I agree that one could use a record in place of a struct, I
don't think structs are obsolete, at least not officially.
From http://clojure.org/datatypes:
Overall, records will be better than structmaps for
While I agree that one could use a record in place of a struct, I
don't think structs are obsolete, at least not officially.
From http://clojure.org/datatypes:
Overall, records will be better than structmaps for all
information-bearing purposes, and you should move such structmaps to
Guys, can you please share link where I can find the ants demo code?
--
Alexey Kachayev,
CTO at KitApp, Inc.
On Friday, June 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Stuart Sierra wrote:
The ants demo is definitely dated. It's not terrible, but the code could use
some polishing/simplifying using newer
Here's the video: http://blip.tv/clojure/clojure-concurrency-819147
and you can get the code here (ants.clj):
http://www.lisptoronto.org/past-meetings/2009-05-clojure-ants-demo
or here if you don't want to download it: https://www.refheap.com/paste/3096
On Jun 10, 8:00 am, Alexey Kachayev
Can you elaborate some suggestions?
I have updated the Ants sim code to use the idiomatic JVM inter-op
constructs and made some other minor changes.
Will work fine on Clojure 1.4
Here is the updated code - https://www.refheap.com/paste/3099
This is the unified diff -
Can you elaborate some suggestions?
Juan Manuel
On Friday, June 8, 2012 3:44:16 PM UTC+2, Stuart Sierra wrote:
The ants demo is definitely dated. It's not terrible, but the code could
use some polishing/simplifying using newer additions to the language.
-S
--
You received this message
The ants demo is definitely dated. It's not terrible, but the code could
use some polishing/simplifying using newer additions to the language.
-S
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group, send email to
I'm preparing an informal presentation about clojure concurrency and my
plan is use the ant colony demo. Given the amount of changes in clojure
since the time that code was written I wonder if the code is still
idiomatic or parts of it should be adapted to modern clojure.
Any ideas would be
13 matches
Mail list logo
